"SKEPTICS" What they do and why -- part 2 of 6
Bruce Daniel Kettler
begin part 2
******************************************
WHAT MAKES THE SKEP-TI-CULT different from
that of the PRO's?
******************************************
Well, there's variety in the PRO's
UFO's
PSYCHIC
ASTROLOGY
MAGICK
and from each of the above, there is a representation of many
religions, many types of books read and quoted, and many
different
magazines.
When you try to communicate with a SKEP-TI-CULT person, you get
the
same old material, over and over. The same attitudes, same
writing, and quotes from the same people. It's all just *ANTI*
whatever is not orthodox "science." In fact, they only vary in
degree of hateful behavior, level of education, and degree of
zealousness. You can put 3 skeptics in a written USENET thread,
arguing against one PRO, and one cannot tell one skeptic from the
other. They are like the same person.
"SKEPTIC" in the dictionary:
doubting, questioning,
thoughtful inquiry
suspended judgement
I do that. I'm a skeptic. The meaning of the "'skeptic' cult"
(Change that to "SKEP-TI-CULT" since it's easier to say.)
however,
is entirely different. They don't doubt at all. They say they
do,
but most of them are quite sure that what people find as real of
the paranormal is *ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.* Their so-called
"investigations" are nothing more than formalities to find their
own truth.
Have you read "sTARBABY"?
Well, I'm still investigating the details of it, and there are
two
sides of the story. However, the many postings I've read of
"skeptics" seems to show a group mind attitude that's like the
accusations of the FATE Magazine article, "sTARBABY."
In this article, which can be located at the WWW site:
http://www.webdesign.ca/~psychic/
________________________________________________________
(Opposing views can be found from the "skeptic" site:
http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/)
I, and a co-author, are currently studying some material
from the "skeptics" that was downloaded from an Mr.
Lippard's FTP site.
________________________________________________________
If sTARBABY is factual, it indicates that one of the person's who
founded CSICOP (Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims
of
the Paranormal) was investigating some statistical studies about
Astrology. His findings, allegedly, indicated statistics that
were
favorable to Astrology being a real factor in human events. He,
according to this article, tried to have the facts published in
the
CSICOP periodical, but it was censored. Later, he was dismissed
from CSICOP, according to this account.
The libelous slander that is so prevelant from so-called
"skeptics"
on USENET is also indicated by the writings of "skeptics" about
Uri
Geller. in print. There seems to be an often repeated pattern
here.
For information regarding libel legal issues, the Uri Geller site
is:
http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/
Contrary views are in the (FAQ) Frequently Asked Questions of
SCI.SKEPTIC.
For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything
paranormal, I do respect them. It's not my place in life to try
to
change them. Skepticism, as with any mode of thought in it's
pure
form, does not require a "soap-box." The same is true of
Christianity, which is fine. If you believe, or if you do not
believe, the purest form of whatever you represent is in your
life,
or some simple statement of your position, not your "soap-box"
reenactment, distorted representation, or consistent attempts to
show that claims of psychic abilities, flying objects, or others
are without foundation.
************************************************************
The question has been asked, when I write of "skeptics"
so-called,
or skeptics, are they all the same?
Of course not. I only write of what *most* of them do, in my
observation, and in that of others.
Further on in this writing, you'll see what I term over-
generalization, and what that is. You'll see how and why this
writing is not over-generalized.
**************************************************************
**** SCIENCE AND THE SO-CALLED "SKEPTIC" ****
In the ALT.PARANORMAL, SCI.SKEPTIC and other USENET
Newsgroups I've discovered some patterns of thought
in the exchange of ideas.
First, I noticed a *BLACK OR WHITE* mentality on the part of the
so-called "skeptics." I'm not taking notice of *ONLY* these
exchanges, but have compared many other encounters, and found the
pattern has shown, in my experience, for years.
A BLACK AND WHITE way of thinking is, in fact, THE REALITY OF A
PERSON. Some would call it their "perspective."
The following words work hand-in-hand with BLACK OR WHITE:
fundamentalism -- any religion
orthodoxy -- in religion and medicine
science -- excluding psychology and statistics
making it thus "orthodox"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's some brief examples of USENET postings that showed the
black-white mentality:
A so-called "skeptic" gave one example about people
"proving" their psychic abilities. The methods were
obviously fraudulent, with children being entitled to
take their experimental objects home. This was a written
example from one of RANDI'S books. That was the
"skeptics" example of unorthodox science. The other
idea, obviously, in the mind of this person was the
"orthodox" science. No-where, evidently, did something
of a shade of grey exist in this person's head.
This so-called "skeptic," responding to my request to
examine some evidence outside of Randi's criteria for it,
by asking me if one should just take the demonstrators
word for it. Here, again, the writing completely lacked
the allowance of grey shades.
This BLACK - WHITE is also termed an
EITHER - OR
mentality.
In the first example, above, there is orthodox science, and there
is fraud. One requires consistently repeatable results. The
other
is fraud. In the shades of grey, statistics are permitted as a
criteria of proof, and the shades of grey become the varying
degrees of control required in a scientific study, which depend,
in
large part, upon the funding available.
In the second example, above, there's Randi's debunking of
evidence
followed by the "true believer" so-called "skeptic," and there's
the allowing for fraud by not checking the subject at all. The
shades of grey would be so-called "skeptics" allowing themselves
to
objectively examine the *actual* evidence, that is, the research
papers of respected scientists, and I'm not referring here to
only
that of Uri Geller at SRI International, but to research papers
of
psychic testing in laboratories worldwide.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The same type of thought exists in a FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN as
in
the ZEALOTS who call themselves "skeptics." Both are fixated
upon
facts. To both a fundamentalist and a "skeptic," it's all they
want:
THE FACTS
To Joseph Campbell, whether Jesus Christ existed or not is not
material. The MYTH is the essence of truth, whether it, in fact,
happened or not. The same is true of readers of Carlos
Castenada,
that whether certain things *happened.* Whether a person named
*Don Juan* actually existed on the Mexican desert is not the
issue,
rather what the teachings are, and what they mean to certain
people.
To both the fundamentalist and the so-called skeptic,
THE FACTS
are all that matter. Fundamentalists take literal meaning from
every word in their books, whether Hindu, Moslem or Christian.
There are no symbolic meanings. It's all just fact, each and
every
word: exact and literal. According to fundamentalist Christians,
each and every word in the Bible is dictated by God.
A Fundamentalist must believe all parts of the Bible, the Koran
or
whatever. If any say they believe only part, the rest of their
group will consider them "heretics."
EITHER - OR
Either the whole book is correct, or we cannot trust any of it.
The "scientific method," is the *orthodox* Scientist's Bible.
It,
like the Bible of the fundamentalist Christian, is absolutely and
without any variation, the true.
And the facts, to that mentality are
100 percent proves the truth of
a scientific experiment
80 percent is as useful an
indication as 0 percent
statistics and science are two
different things, and never shall
the two meet
_______________________________________________________________
Jerome & Heather Grisanti (jer...@iglou.com) wrote:
Who's to say science isn't just as much a
religion as any other? There are those who
preach the gospel of proof and scientific
method...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
___________________________________________________________________
FROM BDK dket...@ix.netcom.com:
Take note, reader, that the person writing the following
evidently
had no knowledge of experiments that have been done for decades,
with cards, and through other methods, in universities. If he
had,
he'd never have written this.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Someone wrote:
Hey, I guess I'm a Psychic!! I tried pulling a card at random
from
a deck and guessing what it was. And it worked!! Well, not every
time, only about 2% of the time, but it worked!! I did it!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, that's just joking, but it's a joke based upon a lack
of
knowledge. It's typical that these so-called "skeptics" know
very
little of what they are talking about.
This is one reason I write, In this document, that people should
not debate with those of this mentality. If 80 percent (as shown
in a future paragraph) isn't good enough, isn't "pure" (orthodox)
science, then why show that you can prove 80 percent, when it's
been established by university experimentation over years that 20
percent (with less types of cards) is chance and so therefore 80
percent is quite significant.
For the sake of the "skeptics" who will, as some have,
misunderstood the following, I am going to write what I mean in
the
statement coming up.
This is not a "claim." I have no proof of Uri Geller's millions
or
billions, whatever it is, earned over a period of years. If you
want proof, check YAHOO for his web site, get the e-mail address,
and write there and ask for it.
If millions of dollars gained over a period of years by Uri
Geller,
using psychic powers to find oil, would only prove to these
people
that the oil companies were gullible, why show how much money or
where it came from?
Bruce Daniel Kettler
dket...@ix.netcom.com
__________________________________________________________________
Someone wrote:
We know that it is not science yet, so we now work in the realm
of
the "statistically significant."
I don't think 2% is statistically significant, but if you could
do
it say 80 % of the time...
________________________________________________________________
That's a good answer.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
dket...@ix.netcom.com
_________________________________________________________________
science is 100%
aa...@torfree.net (Daniel Albano)
_________________________________________________________________
Damn! Well, there goes biology, physics, statistics, medicine,
psychology, psychiatry, sociology and, of course, the study of
chaos theory, out the window. By your definition none of these
things are science.
You'd better not need emergency medical care! It doesn't work
100%
of the time.
Wizard --- wiz...@primenet.com
_________________________________________________________________
and the reply came from:
Robert Grossman <r...@ix.netcom.com>
I agree with the spirit of your refutation. However, I
don't know anyone other than a psychologist or
sociologist that considers those fields to be sciences.
Statistical significance and the predictions based on it
are not science.
Bob.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, I guess that lets nuclear physics out, too. Point out any
physical science, any one at all, that does not measure
statistical
significance in its experiments.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________________________
FOLLOWING FROM BDK dket...@ix.netcom.com
"Statistical significance... are not science."
Well, by absolute definition, you are correct about orthodox
science, but not necessarily what is generally accepted, today,
as
"science." It is relevant that the type of thinking which
constantly goes back to exactness is that of "fundamentalism,"
which can be anything like Hindu, Islamic or Christian.
Also, I notice that the same people who adhere to this exactness
can generally be called "orthodox," and they nearly always see
things as either BLACK or WHITE, with no shades of grey.
Orthodox medicine is that way, in that fundamental ideas are held
as the *true* methods: chemotherapy, heart bypass surgery, etc.
These "high priests" condemn those with alternative methods as
"quacks."
Still, if you want "science" as you find it's most orthodox
definition is, science is very useful. Certain parts of our
observable world, examined by science (with orthodoxy) are
proven,
and there's little room for variation.
However, the so-called "skeptics" will find that once they look
at
life with a broad perspective, they can redefine many things.
There's need to allow themselves the freedom to do so. "Science"
doesn't have to be such a *rigidly* defined thing.
As one example of the change that has come about, regarding the
definition of science, there's the common terms "hard" and
"soft."
Parapsychology is a "soft," science while physics is "hard."
There is an "orthodox" science, yet there is other science. The
"orthodoxy" can continue to call the parapsychologists and
psychologists non-scientists and perhaps, in a way, heretics.
People, these days, are coming to look at this orthodox science
as
a religion, indeed a fundamentalist religion.
Such a religion, for medicine, is no less fanatical than that of
the Inquisition, except that the legal methods of the American
Medical Association are more humane than was the physical torture
of the Inquisition.
There are those who *ARE* scientists who are not "orthodox" as
there are medical doctors who are unorthodox. The medical
establishment, the AMA, has tried to stop the unorthodox medical
doctors legally, and it has, lately, proven to be a losing
battle.
In other ways, the so-called "skeptics" with their orthodox
religion have been trying to influence, to change people to
believe
in their way of thinking.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
dket...@ix.netcom.com
end part 2
Perception -- http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc - Opening
-- -- then select - Doors
Creation-- -- Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena - That
-- -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| - Lead
Reality -- -- The Internet Fax Psychic Connection - Home
Theresa A. Reed
Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<4ufb21$s...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> When you try to communicate with a SKEP-TI-CULT person, you get
> the same old material, over and over. The same attitudes, same
> writing, and quotes from the same people. It's all just *ANTI*
> whatever is not orthodox "science." In fact, they only vary in
> degree of hateful behavior, level of education, and degree of
> zealousness. You can put 3 skeptics in a written USENET thread,
> arguing against one PRO, and one cannot tell one skeptic from the
> other. They are like the same person.
So, let me get this straight...anyone who uses the scientific
method to determine whether something is likely to be bullshit or
not, is pretty much unwanted here? Am I missing some subtle nuance?
I bet if you give an algebra problem to those same three
skeptics, they'd all come up with the same answers (if they
understood algebra). What could that mean? Perhaps it could mean
that they are repeating a process which stays consistant?
Nahhh...they have to be parroting lies and distortions. It's the
only answer!
As a woman who was "killed" in a car wreck, I thought I'd check
out this newsgroup and see what you had to say. I see it. I'm sure
you feel your views are far more legitimate than mine because I
didn't see any fairies, ghosts, gods, tunnels or trolls. They must
have all been busy posting here.
> For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything
> paranormal, I do respect them. It's not my place in life to try
> to change them.
Your generosity warms my heart. Fortunately I've a Tums tablet
nearby, so I'll be all right. Thank you SO much for not trying to
change me, blighted and blinded creature that I am. Every time I
gaze at the foot long scars on my arms and hip I'll remember how
benevolent you were to not try to tell me where I was mistaken and
you were ever so gloriously right.
I anticipate a glorious glow awaiting me in my mailbox from the
flaming to follow. :)
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Mich...@csn.net (Marc Michalik) wrote:
>On 11 Aug 1996 17:36:28 GMT, "Theresa A. Reed" <dark...@spiritone.com>
>wrote:
>>Your generosity warms my heart. Fortunately I've a Tums tablet
>>nearby, so I'll be all right.
<snip>
>I can assure you that BDK has the same effect on the rational proponants
>that he has on you.
And, what effect might that be?
>> I anticipate a glorious glow awaiting me in my mailbox from the
>>flaming to follow. :)
>Only from the crazies. BDK does not represent the proponants in anyway. I
>image most of us wish he would stop his ill-thought-out crusade.
How do you know of "most" of? What is the "us" you represent?
I happen to know of a number of people who support me writing
what I do.
Also, what crusade are you referring to? Is informing people,
helping them, some kind of "crusade" in your view?
Also, are you another of those people who write of a writing
they never read?
Have you heard of:
The New Inquisition
by
Robert Anton Wilson
?
Well, in your view, then each copy of the book, that exposes the
SKEP-TI-CULT mentality must be some sort of "crusade." Every
other book that exposes it, and all the articles in magazines,
like "sTARBABY" must also be a crusade, then, in your view.
sTARBABY
at
Bruce Daniel Kettler
______________________________________________
Since you asked for e-mail, I'm sending it and posting it.
However, I prefer *not* to receive e-mailed responses.
______________________________________________
"Theresa A. Reed" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><4ufb21$s...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>> When you try to communicate with a SKEP-TI-CULT person,
<snip>
>> You can put 3 skeptics in a written USENET thread,
>> arguing against one PRO, and one cannot tell one skeptic from the
>> other. They are like the same person.
> So, let me get this straight...anyone who uses the scientific
>method
No, not "anyone" who uses the scientific method.
> to determine whether something is likely to be bullshit or
>not, is pretty much unwanted here?
Did I write that, or anything like it? I did write something
about the "scientific method" without any variation, but not that
they are unwelcome anywhere. I did not say I disapproved of the
scientific method. My writing indicated it was a way of dealing
with it, that I had commented on.
I also suggest, in various writing, that people writing to
PRO-paranormal newsgroups, views contrary, (anti-paranormal) in a
nice, polite manner without attacking people, or getting involved
in similar fanatical behavior.
>Am I missing some subtle nuance?
> I bet if you give an algebra problem to those same three
>skeptics, they'd all come up with the same answers (if they
>understood algebra). What could that mean? Perhaps it could mean
>that they are repeating a process which stays consistant?
I wasn't referring to similar views, but to a sameness in the
manner, in the doctrines quoted, etc. The entire context would
reveal that to you, without me repeating it here.
>Nahhh...they have to be parroting lies and distortions. It's the
>only answer!
No, that's your view of my writing, without sufficent
information. You wrote of what I wrote, and apparently didn't
read it, just picked up a word here and there.
> As a woman who was "killed" in a car wreck, I thought I'd check
>out this newsgroup and see what you had to say. I see it. I'm sure
>you feel your views are far more legitimate than mine because I
>didn't see any fairies, ghosts, gods, tunnels or trolls. They must
>have all been busy posting here.
No, your views are legitimate. You didn't see any "fairies,
ghosts, gods, tunnels or trolls." I'll accept that.
I'll also accept that your posting, and the type of sarcasm,
smells a little foul of hostility, and ignorance of what I've
*actually* written.
>> For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything
>> paranormal, I do respect them. It's not my place in life to try
>> to change them.
> Your generosity warms my heart. Fortunately I've a Tums tablet
>nearby, so I'll be all right. Thank you SO much for not trying to
>change me, blighted and blinded creature that I am.
No-where, in any of my writing, have I stated anything negative
about people who do not believe as I do.
I wrote of SKEP-TI-CULT people, and people of other cults, those
who do not tolerate my beliefs.
Those are the one's I comment on, not those who disagree with my
views.
>Every time I
>gaze at the foot long scars on my arms and hip I'll remember how
>benevolent you were to not try to tell me where I was mistaken and
>you were ever so gloriously right.
You seem rather bitter. Can you write rationally, while
expressing such irrational emotions in your hyperbole?
> I anticipate a glorious glow awaiting me in my mailbox from the
>flaming to follow. :)
No flames from me, just corrections. Your perceptions are not
accurate.
I do not flame people who disagree with me. I flame people who
lie about my actions, lie about things I've allegedly written,
and attempt to attack my character.
I have noted that people who begin flaming me generally find
themselves exposed and embarrassed, as the agreements from other
posters readily shows.
Most of the time flamers start out lying about me, because they
do not like my exposure of the SKEP-TI-CULT mentality. Then,
they begin misquoting me, and they think that way I'll be
discredited. It's a mess.
I hope you're not one of those people, but are rather one who's
just made some misperceptions, by mistake.
Marc Michalik
On 11 Aug 1996 17:36:28 GMT, "Theresa A. Reed" <dark...@spiritone.com>
wrote:
> Your generosity warms my heart. Fortunately I've a Tums tablet
>nearby, so I'll be all right. Thank you SO much for not trying to
>change me, blighted and blinded creature that I am. Every time I
>gaze at the foot long scars on my arms and hip I'll remember how
>benevolent you were to not try to tell me where I was mistaken and
>you were ever so gloriously right.
I can assure you that BDK has the same effect on the rational proponants
that he has on you.
> I anticipate a glorious glow awaiting me in my mailbox from the
>flaming to follow. :)
Only from the crazies. BDK does not represent the proponants in anyway. I
image most of us wish he would stop his ill-thought-out crusade.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Niel Peart
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Mich...@csn.net (Marc Michalik) wrote:
>I can assure you that BDK has the same effect on the rational proponants
>that he has on you.
Marc, if you considered this person's reply to my posting to be
representative of what I *ACTUALLY* wrote in the posting, it
shows you to very quick to make assumptions based on your own
ignorance of the facts.
I did reply to the posting, so look at that, and you might then
know what I *really* wrote.
>> I anticipate a glorious glow awaiting me in my mailbox from the
>>flaming to follow. :)
>Only from the crazies. BDK does not represent the proponants in anyway. I
>image most of us wish he would stop his ill-thought-out crusade.
You probably don't even know of the contents of what "she" is
writing about.
If you do know of the contents, tell me what I wrote that does
"not represent the proponents in anyway." Tell me of any of my
postings, at anytime, that does not represent the *majority* of
the proponents, not just taking into consideration one or two
disagreeing postings from *PRO* paranormal people. (pro means not
anti) and the ANTI, well I don't even want to hear about it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the following is your writing, MARC:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Brian Needs to Get a Life
Organization Imperial Romulan Navy
Date Wed, 31 Jul 1996 06:24:46 GMT
Newsgroups
alt.alien.visitors" alt.alien.visitors
alt.paranet.ufo" alt.paranet.ufo
news:alt.alien.research" alt.alien.research
news:sci.skeptic" sci.skeptic
Message-ID 301c732d...@news-2.csn.net>
On 31 Jul 1996 03:38:38 GMT, w.s...@ix.netcom.com(Bill
Smith) wrote:
<snip>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't come out of lurkdom often,
________________________________________
in "lurkdom" do you read all sides of issues?
(bdk)
________________________________________]
but I have been here for
8 years watching all you demented sceptics fanatically
_________________
(bdk)
"demented skeptics" and you call my writing some kind
of a bad "campaign" Jeeeeez!
__________________
attacking anyone who wants to discuss the subject of this
newsgroup. All that time, you deranged lunatic-fringe
______________________________________________________
Hey, that's what I write about in "'SKEPTICS' what they do and
why" Apparently we agree that PRO paranormal people get attacked
by fanatical "skeptics." Why do you write about my writing as if
it's some terrible "campaign," and go on writing the same things
I say? What the hell?
(BDK)
______________________________________________________
____________________
Now, let me get this straight, you're calling "skeptics"
"deranged lunatic-fringe.
And, you have the gall to write, of people like me,
"only from the crazies."
_________________________
wackos have whined again and again about "science" and
"reasearch". All this time no proponant has been willing to
spend the unreasonable amount of time and effort you
lunatics unrealistically demand. Untill now. And as soon
as someone attempts to meet your ludicrous demands they get
this???
Make up your damn minds. Is this what you demand, or is
this "not normal". Make up your puny minds. This is
unbelievable and the most blatant display of hypocrisy I
have ever witnessed. Eight years of demanding this level of
effort, and this is the "sceptic" response to thier
unreasonable demands being met.
_____________________
Wackos,
Lunatics
puny minds
I *NEVER* wrote anything like that about skeptics, and you write
as if my writing is some kind of a terrible "campaign."
Get a grip, will you? Get some perspective.
(BDK)
____________________________________________________
The demented, deranged, hypocritical, lunatic-fringe
sceptic/debunker wackos are truely beginning to look as
silly as their High Priest, Phil Klass. Your deceptive,
dishonest, and hypocritical ways are apparrent in this post.
More than apparent, blindlingly illustrated would be a
better term.
_________________
"demented"
"deranged"
"hypocritical"
"lunatic fringe"
That's how you write about skeptics? I never wrote that sharply
about them.
Look write whatever you want. I don't go and criticize your
postings, so if you want to criticise mine, at least read *THE
POSTING* and not some reaction of a person who * TOTALLY
MISREPRESENTED IT.*
Geeeeeezzzzzzzz!
(BDK)
___________________________________________________
<snip>
Bruce Daniel Kettler
"Theresa A. Reed" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><4ufb21$s...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
There are a number of facts noted here:
1. The poster "Theresa A. Reed" is not listed in USENET archives
as a previous poster.
2. This person does not write like a "newbie."
3. The writing style is not only typically "fanatical skeptic,"
but rather "skeptic," with a Dan Pressnell, dpre...@ns.vvm.com,
type fanatic twist.
a. the very writing, that was quoted directly above it, was
misrepresented, like Dan does. See reference to "scientific
method."
b. writes of hyperbolic "lies and distortions" where would a
"newbie" get that about me writing of "lies and distortions."
Dan Pressnell writes that stuff.
c. same persecution complex -- "foot long bruises and scars"
not being wanted here -- very familiar misperception of
being "censored"
d. "gloriously right" rings to the "think you are god almighty"
from Dan Pressnell's previous posts
e. same brand and degree of sarcasm
ie: "fairies, ghosts, gods, tunnels or trolls. They must
have all been busy posting here."
f. same brand and degree of hyperbole
4. writes of being unwanted in alt.paranormal -- only
people who have been around awhile think that,
not some newbie. Title of thread, the contents, don't
indicate being unwanted as a skeptic, only the fanatical
behavior and abusive postings
5. THIS APPEARS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE USUAL TIMING
OF RESPONSES FROM DAN PRESSNELL, NOW IN THE
SUBJECT TITLE: "Sarfatti to all flamers"
>> When you try to communicate with a SKEP-TI-CULT person, you get
>> the same old material, over and over. The same attitudes, same
>> writing, and quotes from the same people. It's all just *ANTI*
>> whatever is not orthodox "science." <snip>
>So, let me get this straight...anyone who uses the scientific
>method to determine whether something is likely to be bullshit or
>not, is pretty much unwanted here? Am I missing some subtle nuance?
Obviously, right above your writing, appears "attitudes," "same
old material" "quotes" "anti" and ORTHODOX SCIENCE IS NOT THE
SAME THING AS SCIENCE, any more than ORTHODOX medicine is the
same as real, everyday, accepted medical practice, at least these
days.
Nothing there about a method of ascertaining the truth, just the
way of expressing.
That's the same twisted type writing of Dan Pressnell.
Remarkable! Very few people can write like him, rewrite quite as
far from the original writing as him. Others attempt it, and
they do rewrite distorted from the original, but not *QUITE* as
twisted.
Also, it's too personal, the way it's written to me, not like
someone who's never written to me before.
Why would some stranger think their thinking was unwanted in
paranormal type newsgroups?
>Perhaps it could mean
>that they are repeating a process which stays consistant?
>Nahhh...they have to be parroting lies and distortions. It's the
>only answer!
I wrote of expressions, ways of speaking, not processes, and you
came up with the above twisted, just totally twisted
representation of my writing. You have just got to be Dan, one
of a kind.
> far more legitimate than mine because I
>didn't see any fairies, ghosts, gods, tunnels or trolls. They must
>have all been busy posting here.
I didn't write anything about disagreements of near death
experiences, or non experiences.
>> For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything
>> paranormal, I do respect them. It's not my place in life to try
>> to change them.
><snip> Every time I
>gaze at the foot long scars on my arms and hip I'll remember how
>benevolent you were to not try to tell me where I was mistaken and
>you were ever so gloriously right.
>I anticipate a glorious glow awaiting me in my mailbox from the
>flaming to follow. :)
Flaming in the mailbox? Wasn't there some stuff placed about my
supposedly flaming people in their mailbox non-stop, every day,
for months? Didn't that come from Dan Pressnell?
What is a "newbie" writing this stuff for?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you're not Dan Pressnell, posting to a different account, or
having given up on being Dan Pressnell because you are
discredited, and now using a different and faked account, then
you should meet him. He is just like you. Being like him is
*REALLY* unusual. He's one of a kind.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's see if it goes
on...and...on....and....on....and on....and on.....
If it does, then it just *HAS* to be Dan Pressnell in a female
disguise. I've never known another "skeptic" to go
on...and...on....and...on....and....on....and on....and on.
Well, then, he might try another account. Get's expensive,
though.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wizard
Well, this has been an absolutely fascinating thread.
I went to the trouble of reading BDK's several posts. Although I think he
is an absolutely terrible writer, the points he makes are, in many
instances valid.
There are other points which I think are questionable. Were I part of, as
he puts it, the Skepticult, I would focus on those things. Instead, the
posts I've read so far have misinterpreted and misrepresented what he
posted.
I would urge the people who disagree with BDK to be careful with their
posts lest they prove exactly what he wrote. So far, that is all I've seen
them do.
Wizard
Bruce Daniel Kettler
wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>Well, this has been an absolutely fascinating thread.
>I went to the trouble of reading BDK's several posts. Although I think he
>is an absolutely terrible writer, the points he makes are, in many
>instances valid.
Well, yes, you are right about my writing, not "terrible" in my
opinion, but it could use improvement. If you'd care to send me
e-mail, and you don't charge anything, your critique would be
appreciated.
So far, I've noticed repitition, and a need to synthesize things.
I've been adding, duplicating, and on and on without paying
attention to how it fits together as a whole. It requires work.
I've done some revising, actually, in accordance with *some* of
the criticisms from "skeptics" about their beliefs.
A bit more interesting writing, some humor, would be in order
here. I could shorten a bit too, cut long sentences into shorter
one's. I could cut some paragraphs out completely, and stuff
like that.
>There are other points which I think are questionable. Were I part of, as
>he puts it, the Skepticult, I would focus on those things. Instead, the
>posts I've read so far have misinterpreted and misrepresented what he
>posted.
>I would urge the people who disagree with BDK to be careful with their
>posts lest they prove exactly what he wrote. So far, that is all I've seen
>them do.
Ah yes, they make me into a prophet of utmost accuracy, don't
they?
>Wizard
Dan Pressnell
dket...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>>I would urge the people who disagree with BDK to be careful with their
>>posts lest they prove exactly what he wrote. So far, that is all I've seen
>>them do.
>Ah yes, they make me into a prophet of utmost accuracy, don't
>they?
Trying to make friends with Wizard again, Bruce? You did that once
before, when he was attacking me with his utter stupidity, and you
ended up disavowing having anything to do with his ideas.
Maybe you are just running short on anybody to support your hate
campaign lately?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
>the
>same old material, over and over.
How many times are you going to post this same old material, over and
over?
Jim Rogers
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
....
> >> For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything
> >> paranormal, I do respect them. It's not my place in life to try
> >> to change them.
>
> > Your generosity warms my heart. Fortunately I've a Tums tablet
> >nearby, so I'll be all right. Thank you SO much for not trying to
> >change me, blighted and blinded creature that I am.
>
> No-where, in any of my writing, have I stated anything negative
> about people who do not believe as I do.
>
> I wrote of SKEP-TI-CULT people, and people of other cults, those
> who do not tolerate my beliefs.
>
> Those are the one's I comment on, not those who disagree with my
> views.
Then why is your thread titled "SKEPTICS..." and not "SKEP-TI-CULT..."?
You are speaking in worthless generalities; it is impossible to tell
who and what writings your are objecting to.
Jim
Bruce Daniel Kettler
<snip>
>Trying to make friends with Wizard again, Bruce? You did that once
>before, when he was attacking me with his utter stupidity, and you
>ended up disavowing having anything to do with his ideas.
Well , Dan, you say I disavowed him. Hmmmm, well no that's is
not what happened. I **never** wrote that:
1. I did not like him.
2. I did not approve of him.
3. I did not agree with him.
All I wrote, as I recall, was that one of his ideas may not have
been so great about how to find something about a bank account.
My point, was that I had another idea on how to find out about
the bank account, and that it was totally unrelated to your
argument with WIZARD.
Also, I'll bet you'd just love to bring that up about the bank
account again, wouldn't you?
>Maybe you are just running short on anybody to support your hate
>campaign lately?
To begin, it's your hate campaign, not mine. Also, I don't have
ANY campaign. I like to keep people informed, and like any
author, I have no campaign.
So, you think I need support. I don't need support, but it often
comes my way. Sometimes it's Brian Zeiler, and now it's WIZARD.
I appreciate it, but I don't ask for it or need it.
I'll bet you'll continue to argue with the above statement.
You'll find some fault with it.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
dpre...@ns.vvm.com (Dan Pressnell) wrote:
>dket...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>>When you try to communicate with a SKEP-TI-CULT person, you get
>>the
>>same old material, over and over.
>How many times are you going to post this same old material, over and
>over?
Well, quite obviously, the two statements, mine and yours, have
different meanings.
When you write of what I do, you are writing of a revised copy.
It's like printing books, as more people read them, more get
priinted, and they get distributed. My writing is appreciated
and in demand, and so I continue it.
When people of the SKEP-TI-CULT make up arguments, they reapeat
things like
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
When a pro-paranormal type person argues a point, they argue
their own experience, and a whole variety of ideas, not
necessarily the same doctrines repeatedly. There are a few
pro-paranormal people who post to USENET, who are cult members,
but that is the exception rather than the rule. At least there
are *different* cults, rather than the same one.
Well, in answer to your question, I have been planning to start
announcing it once a month, and having it at my web site, instead
of re-posting it entirely. I just have not taken the time to
place it at the web site, yet.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>....
>> >> For those skeptics, true skeptics, who have no belief in anything
>> >> paranormal, I do respect them. It's not my place in life to try
>> >> to change them.
>>
>> > Your generosity warms my heart. Fortunately I've a Tums tablet
>> >nearby, so I'll be all right. Thank you SO much for not trying to
>> >change me, blighted and blinded creature that I am.
>>
>> No-where, in any of my writing, have I stated anything negative
>> about people who do not believe as I do.
>>
>> I wrote of SKEP-TI-CULT people, and people of other cults, those
>> who do not tolerate my beliefs.
>>
>> Those are the one's I comment on, not those who disagree with my
>> views.
>Then why is your thread titled "SKEPTICS..." and not "SKEP-TI-CULT..."?
>You are speaking in worthless generalities; it is impossible to tell
>who and what writings your are objecting to.
It is titled SKEPTICS in quotes, and that is different than
skeptics not in quotes.
"'SKEPTICS' What they do and why"
It's not impossible to tell who I'm referring to. I make a clear
distinction between so-called "skeptics" and people who are
actually skeptical. I am quite clear that a person who is
skeptical is not the type I refer to, when I write of
SKEP-TI-CULT types.
I don't write in worthless generalities. There are certain usual
practices of the SKEP-TI-CULT types. I pointed out what they
are.
Paul Schlyter
In article <4uuto5$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>When people of the SKEP-TI-CULT make up arguments, they reapeat
>things like
>
> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
You disagree with this?
If you disagree, you would really claim::
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DO NOT REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
So I have two things to tell you:
1. Yesterday I walked down to my local food shop, bought some food,
and then I had dinner. Nothing extraordinary, I suppose you'll take
my word for this.
2. Yesterday I grew some wings om my back. Then I learnt to fly in
10 minutes. I flew out in space, past the Moon and the planets, out in
interstellar space. I completed a trip around our Galaxy, and returned
home -- all in less than 15 minues. This is an extraordinary claim. But
since you think extraordinary claims requires no extraordinary proofs,
I suppose you'll take my word for this too, right?
If you don't take my word for 2., then you too agree that:
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
so why complain about that statement?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@home.ausys.se
Scribbler
> >> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF>
> Paul, there are points in between *DO* and *DO NOT*
> There are also points, *DEGREES* in between what *IS*
> extraordinary as far as the types of claims.
>
> The point is, though as a guideline "ECREP" is useful, it is
> commonly used as a DOCTRINE by so-called "skeptics."
>
> No, I would not, hypothetically take your word for it, and my
> giving the example of a doctrine did, in no way, mean that the
> "ECREP" statement has *NO* merit, only that it was overused,
> oft-repeated, for situations, in a rigid manner. Anytime a
> sentence is used repeatedly by a group, and that group does not
> exercise some degree of flexibility with it, it becomes a
> doctrine. Doctrines interfere with the ability to reason,
> freely.
>
> The same is true with the scientific method.
>
> RIGID DOCTRINES are symptoms of fundamentalism, in religion, in
> science, in medicine, and with ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE that form a
> GROUP MIND by reading the same literature.
> the point is, the word
> "extraordinary" does not have an absolute meaning in application,
> except, perhaps, in the mind of the person using it.
Here, here--you're not alone in this. You said what I've been wanting
to say for a while. I always seek the scientific, usual common-place
explanation when anything "extraordinary" happens, but I am not so
arrogant as to insist that, if I cannot prove it using "ordinary" means,
via the scientific method (a man-made tool, and therefore inherently
fallible), it "cannot be". The scientific method is an ideology (vis.
your doctrine statement). It often subverts the very process. The true
lover of science would always remain agnostic towards anything they were
unable to prove--it's basic philosophy, and has been since Socrates said
it ("The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing").
And as for those who see a great big fat line jutting up between
"science" and "philosophy", recollect my friends that those two schools
were born in the same brains (ie Pythagorus): philosophy was inseverable
from geometry and astonomy, the earliest of the "pure" sciences. Thought
is thought is thought.
That's just my VHO spoken through a Very Big Mouth. Something that's
been festering for a few years.
Scribbler
Bruce Daniel Kettler
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <4uuto5$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>When people of the SKEP-TI-CULT make up arguments, they reapeat
>>things like
>>
>> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
>You disagree with this?
>If you disagree, you would really claim::
> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DO NOT REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
("ECREP")
Here we go again, not only the same
****DOCTRINES****
but the same EXACT,
BLACK-WHITE EITHER-OR
mentality. This illustrates my point again and again, nearly
every time you people post.
AS IN THE ABOVE EXAMPLE:
Extraordinary claims require....
Extraordinary claims *DO NOT* require....
Paul, there are points in between *DO* and *DO NOT*
There are also points, *DEGREES* in between what *IS*
extraordinary as far as the types of claims.
>So I have two things to tell you:
This is a classic, and often repeated type of argument,
illustrating my point *AGAIN*. In which book, of Randi, is this
argument method shown?
Thank you, Paul, for showing all the readers that my writing does
*NOT* consist of broad generalizations about "skeptics."
>1. Yesterday I walked down to my local food shop, bought some food,
>and then I had dinner. Nothing extraordinary, I suppose you'll take
>my word for this.
>2. Yesterday I grew some wings om my back. Then I learnt to fly in
>10 minutes. I flew out in space, past the Moon and the planets, out in
>interstellar space. I completed a trip around our Galaxy, and returned
>home -- all in less than 15 minues. This is an extraordinary claim. But
>since you think extraordinary claims requires no extraordinary proofs,
>I suppose you'll take my word for this too, right?
Now, *THAT* is extraordinary. Growing wings on your back is
extraordinary. It does, sort of, illustrate your point.
However, suppose, in the category of extraordinary that you (all
"skeptics" say ESP is extraordinary) employ, you said something
happenened out of the ordinary that did not involve flying with
wings in an area without any atmosphere to support the wing
flying. THAT WOULD BE A DEGREE IN BETWEEN YOUR EXTREME EXAMPLES.
It could be that you had a flash of insight, something that
seemed to come beyond your normal reasoning ability, and which
you believe was ESP.
*Some* would say that was extraordinary, and many, many, (believe
me) many, others would say that you should pay attention to that
insight. Much depends upon geographical location, as to whether
it would be "many."
Extraordinary proof? Well, some would say you better try that
ESP ability out many times before you take a risk with it that
could cost you 1/2 a million dollars. Then again, if it involved
a 1 hour drive, that kind of risk, no-one would say it should
require extraordinary proof. The 1 hour drive may require *SOME*
proof, some memory of your experience with ESP, while the 1/2
million dollar risk would require that you examine your past
results with ESP, statistically, and that proof required would be
much more extensive. Of course, believing the wing growing would
require MUCH, MUCH, MORE PROOF FOR ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN.
The point is, though as a guideline "ECREP" is useful, it is
commonly used as a DOCTRINE by so-called "skeptics."
No, I would not, hypothetically take your word for it, and my
giving the example of a doctrine did, in no way, mean that the
"ECREP" statement has *NO* merit, only that it was overused,
oft-repeated, for situations, in a rigid manner. Anytime a
sentence is used repeatedly by a group, and that group does not
exercise some degree of flexibility with it, it becomes a
doctrine. Doctrines interfere with the ability to reason,
freely.
The same is true with the scientific method. I saw writing here
in alt.paranormal, in which someone argued that an experiment
involving athletes with astrology had to be repeated in a future
generation. That may be the letter of "SCIENTISM" but it is not
the spirit of science, as it is practiced today, generally. It
does have to be repeated, to be statistically valid, but not in
future generations. One could go *back* generations, and as long
as the sampling was random, that would meet the requirement for
repeatability.
RIGID DOCTRINES are symptoms of fundamentalism, in religion, in
science, in medicine, and with ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE that form a
GROUP MIND by reading the same literature.
>If you don't take my word for 2., then you too agree that:
> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
>so why complain about that statement?
Paul, you are writing, above, that since I don't believe you
sprouted wings and flew through an area of space that has no
atmosphere to support wing supported flying, that I do believe
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
absolutely, without any variations, ever, and subject to whatever
"skeptic," so-called, wants to interpret what "extraordinary" is
both for the claims, and for the proof. I am interpreting you
here, according to the mentality that both you, and every other
so-called "skeptic" (in my extensive experience) has shown in the
expression of the above statement.
A clear, hypothetical, example was given, in the text, regarding
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
(ECREP)
of an island culture where telepathy had been practiced daily by
the natives, having been visited by a "skeptic" demanding some
laboratory experiments be done. To the natives, the claim was
not extraordinary, only to the "skeptic." The point is, the word
"extraordinary" does not have an absolute meaning in application,
except, perhaps, in the mind of the person using it.
Marc Michalik
On 17 Aug 1996 08:22:18 +0200, pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
>In article <4uuto5$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>When people of the SKEP-TI-CULT make up arguments, they reapeat
>>things like
>>
>> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
>
>You disagree with this?
>
>If you disagree, you would really claim::
>
> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DO NOT REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
He may not, but I would. I have always thought that too be a rediculously
stupid statement and can't believe that it has become the battlecry of
sceptics and debunkers. Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary
proof, they require the exact same level of proof as anything else. If
something is proven, it is proven. There is no way to "extraordinarly
prove" something.
The statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" is, quite
obviously, redundant.
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." -- Neil Peart
Darklady
Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<4v11rd$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> I don't write in worthless generalities. There are certain usual
> practices of the SKEP-TI-CULT types. I pointed out what they
> are.
You don't write in worthless generalities, you write in
worthless contradictions, Bruce. Possibly one of the key
reasons you're dreaming of self-publication in order to spread
your word.
First you complain because your boogie men, the SKEP-TI-
CULTists (in those very important "on the fringe" capital letters)
are always presenting the same darn arguments to debunk you.
You whine a little about that silly scientific method thing and how
it shouldn't always be used. And then you tell us that SKEP-TI-
CULT people are filled with generalities. Generalities? After using
logical proofs, the scientific method and the like? Which is it, man?
BTW -- thanks for posting one of the letters we exchanged...but
only one. You selected the most benign of them all, I notice. Not
the one where I pointed out nearly every time you launched an
ad hominum attack against me. I never bothered to point out the
times you used argumentum absurdum. Your initial post sounds
find until a person has the audacity to question the weaker parts
of it...then they earn the title "fanatic" from you. A fanatic is, of
course, anyone who dares to question you and who continues to
possess a differing opinion.
Darklady
Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<4v4c4j$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
<major surgery, resting quietly with plenty of fluids>
> However, suppose, in the category of extraordinary that you (all
> "skeptics" say ESP is extraordinary) employ,
Bruce? Drink this water, I think you're having heat stroke.
ESP is extraordinary. If it weren't then no one would make a
big deal out of it, pay big bucks to someone to use it or advertise
it on TV 24 hours on the Preview Channel. We all have a small
bit of ESP, even skeptics acccept that...days when we're especially
in tune with those around us, the occasional simultaneously spoken
phrase, phones being picked up before they ring, etc. But to continuously
have control of this flickering ability...that's extraordinary.
<more surgery...ouch!>
> No, I would not, hypothetically take your word for it, and my
> giving the example of a doctrine did, in no way, mean that the
> "ECREP" statement has *NO* merit, only that it was overused,
> oft-repeated, for situations, in a rigid manner. Anytime a
> sentence is used repeatedly by a group, and that group does not
> exercise some degree of flexibility with it, it becomes a
> doctrine. Doctrines interfere with the ability to reason,
> freely.
So sometimes rain does fall up? Sometimes gravity pushes people
away? Sometimes cows do give birth to ducks? Please give me an
example when ECREP would be inappropriate. Please give me when
a scientific proof is inappropriate. If paranormal activities exist then
there
should be an underlying logic to them...expecting to find a pattern is not
an unreasonable thing. I'm assuming you believe your car's engine follows
a logical pattern (even though they seem darn capricious) even though you
may not understand how exactly it works. Why should ESP (etc.) be
different?
>
> The same is true with the scientific method. I saw writing here
> in alt.paranormal, in which someone argued that an experiment
> involving athletes with astrology had to be repeated in a future
> generation. That may be the letter of "SCIENTISM" but it is not
> the spirit of science, as it is practiced today, generally. It
> does have to be repeated, to be statistically valid, but not in
> future generations. One could go *back* generations, and as long
> as the sampling was random, that would meet the requirement for
> repeatability.
You can't always go BACK generations. Geeez...let's test that
on someone who's 75 and see how it goes, eh? How about the dead?
Surely you've got a psychic who can run a test on the dead, eh? Science
is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
proved.
We can stop running those tests now." It says "Well, this sure seems to
be the case and we'll run with it...but let's keep an eye on it in case we
discover something affecting our results that we hadn't known about at
the time."
Bruce Daniel Kettler
"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><4v4c4j$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
<snip>
>> However, suppose, in the category of extraordinary that you (all
>> "skeptics" say ESP is extraordinary) employ,
><snip>
>ESP is extraordinary. If it weren't then no one would make a
>big deal out of it, pay big bucks to someone to use it or advertise
>it on TV 24 hours on the Preview Channel.
><snip>
You missed the point. Anything is either ordinary, or
extraordinary by degrees. There is no such reality, in this
world, (don't know about your mind) that has 2 categories
1. Extraordinary
2. Not Extraordinary
So, also, as you mentioned, there are degrees of psychic ability,
and there are many variations of how ordinary it may be.
Your stating that ESP is extraordinary is meaningless. Since
there are degrees of such ability, and the idea of *ANY
PARTICULAR DEGREE OF SUCH ABILITY* being extraordinary depends
upon what area of the world or of the USA you happen to be. So,
the simple statement you made is ludicrous.
Examples of degrees of psychic ability:
1. One knows the first letter of a person's name
2. One knows the first and second letter
3. One knows the first, second and third letter, all initials
4. One knows the sound of the person's name, not the exact
letters
1. One can answer a question when the subject is presented,
getting more answers by first being prompted
2. One knows the question before the question is asked
1. one knows correctly 80 percent of the time
2. one knows correctly 85 percent of the time
3. one knows correctly 90 percent of the time
><snip>We all have a small
>bit of ESP, even skeptics acccept that...days when we're especially
>in tune with those around us, the occasional simultaneously spoken
>phrase, phones being picked up before they ring, etc. But to continuously
>have control of this flickering ability...that's extraordinary.
Well, as for what skeptics accept, I'll assume you mean people
who are skeptical, which we all are, to one degree or another.
Continually having control, to what degree, how often, are all
degrees, and how ordinary depends upon the culture and the
degrees.
<snip>
>> No, I would not, hypothetically take your word for it, and my
>> giving the example of a doctrine did, in no way, mean that the
>> "ECREP" statement has *NO* merit, only that it was overused,
>> oft-repeated, for situations, in a rigid manner. Anytime a
>> sentence is used repeatedly by a group, and that group does not
>> exercise some degree of flexibility with it, it becomes a
>> doctrine. Doctrines interfere with the ability to reason,
>> freely.
><snip> Please give me an
>example when ECREP would be inappropriate.
"ESP is extraordinary" is what you wrote. In the above examples,
at the beginning of this posting, and in the original posting you
answered here -- in greater depth -- are examples of the misuse.
>Please give me when
>a scientific proof is inappropriate.
I never wrote that scientific proof is inappropriate. The
original text (SWTDAW) adequately illustrates the misuse of
so-called "science" (sometimes called "scientism") as it applies
in an "orthodox" sense. One example, in the text, shows postings
that reveal rigid adherance to "scientism." Other writing in
this thread shows inappropriate mis-use of so-called "science"
from other people.
>If paranormal activities exist then
>there
>should be an underlying logic to them...expecting to find a pattern is not
>an unreasonable thing.
Read the thread title,
"PSYCHIC TESTING -- LAB RESULTS --DISCUSSION"
and there you will find extensive discussion about scientific
methods and ESP, from the "skeptic" side and the proponent's
side. There patterns are shown, and yes, expecting to find a
pattern is, as you say, a reasonable thing. Portions of
extensively worded text from "skeptics" have been cut out. The
original thread titles are shown in the text of the above.
_____________________________________________________
To access USENET archives, and see expired postings:
1. USE WWW BROWSER
2. select a SEARCH ENGINE, (browsers have "find")
preferably ALTA VISTA
3. SELECT "USENET"
4. SELECT THE e-mail address of those in the thread you
want to see the whole posting of
A web page is referenced, in that thread, which shows discussion
of a well known statistician, Professor Jessica Utts, and a
skeptic.
____________________________________________________
<snip>
>> The same is true with the scientific method. I saw writing here
>> in alt.paranormal, in which someone argued that an experiment
>> involving athletes with astrology had to be repeated in a future
>> generation. That may be the letter of "SCIENTISM" but it is not
>> the spirit of science, as it is practiced today, generally. It
>> does have to be repeated, to be statistically valid, but not in
>> future generations. One could go *back* generations, and as long
>> as the sampling was random, that would meet the requirement for
>> repeatability.
><snip>It [science] says "Well, this sure seems to
>be the case and we'll run with it...but let's keep an eye on it in case we
>discover something affecting our results that we hadn't known about at
>the time."
It is fine to go into future generations to test astrology
statistically, and as you say, "keep an eye on it" but keeping
the letter of the orthodox "science" law, that we *must* wait
till the next generation for repeatability, in order to show
astrology is valid, is unnecessary, and impractical because of
the unnecessary time waiting. We can go back and test results,
as far back as necessary for repeatability, and it will have the
same meaning. Humans do not change that much in a few
generations to make that sort of "back-testing" invalid.
Astrological symbols have the same meanings, basicly, for many
generations, and we don't evolve physically or mentally, that
much, in 500 years.
And, answering your question, again, following the letter of the
law, that we must have repeatability in *THE FUTURE EXAMPLES* is
one of the misuse, the fanatical adherance to the letter of a
law, the scientific method, and it is a fundamentalist mentality.
Following the spirit of that law (with some variation) does not
make science, or the scientific method, less workable or
valuable.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>Darklady wrote:
>> Science
>> is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
>> proved.
>You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
><snip>
>I will have to reiterate the philosophy of science a bit for the
>"scientists" here.
><snip>science was maintained and established as a paradigm through the
>university, which was the effect of church that was one of the few bodies
>to accumulate and keep records of bodies of knowledge. So bodies of
>research and thinking in metaphysical areas that were unacceptable to the
>church were conveniently weeded out and not articulated.
<snip>
><snip> Philosophy is actually more inclusive of truth
>premises than science, because of conceptual integration.
><snip>Sciences study systematically the MATERIAL PHYSICAL world
>not psychic
>material. And contrary to your assertion the goal of the scientific
>practice is to ARTICULATE the paradigm academically-not acknowledge
>anamoly. <snip>
><snip>Discovery commences with the awareness of anamoly, i.e., with the
>recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced
>EXPECTATIONS that govern normal science. (Anamoly and the emergence of
>Scientific discoveries VI pg 52).
>In short, science tends to become rigid. I am not against science I am
>FOR clear perspectives. The psychological attributes of the observer also
>have influence on the determination of outcomes, collection of data etc.
>Now within the pardigm of metaphysics and astrology it must be the
>articulators of THOSE paradigms that determine what sorts of tests are
>appropriate or not to further articulate IT.
Ed:
I agree that the points you make above, not snipped,
are valid, for a dying, old, *ORTHODOX* science.
I will state that "scientism," or orthodox "science" is
inadequate to evaluate PSI or ASTROLOGY -- *PROPERLY*
Yet, the less orthodox approach, with variations in the
scientific method, though inadequate to give a *thorough*
evaluation of PSI or ASTROLOGY, have been, and are continuing to
show PSI and ASTROLOGY to be highly probable of validity.
Even orthodox methods, with the use of statistics, are showing
PSI to have a very high degree of probability of being valid.
I gave examples, in both of my postings, (the first 2) of the
shortcomings of the above scientific methods of proving PSI, how
it could show *EVEN HIGHER* degrees of probabilty of being
authentic, (for regular people like you and me) with less
conclusive proof for the "skeptics" in "PSYCHIC TESTING -- LAB
RESULTS -- DISCUSSION," in alt.paranormal and other newsgroups.
I WROTE THE FOLLOWING:
>OK, OK, the design and inference were adequate.
>Yes, information transfer occurred outside the five senses.
>Yes, the experiment met and exceeded all scientific protocols for
>design and inference AS JUDGED BY A WELL-KNOWN SKEPTIC
>Yes, and it was PSI, as what else could it be outside the 5
>senses?
>BUT BUT BUT
>Do you people realize how totally BORING it is to be subjected to
>this type of experimentation?
>When boredom is part of the experimentation, absolute
>disinterest, it's a wonder that the results came out favorable at
>all.
[and I went on to point out the methods that could show
much more favorable statistical results]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter M
Peter M
Edmond Wollmann
Darklady wrote:
> Science
> is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
> proved.
You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
> We can stop running those tests now." It says "Well, this sure seems to
> be the case and we'll run with it...but let's keep an eye on it in case we
> discover something affecting our results that we hadn't known about at
> the time."
Well now! I am afraid you have proven my friend correct here, and I guess
I will have to reiterate the philosophy of science a bit for the
"scientists" here.
1) science was maintained and established as a paradigm through the
university, which was the effect of church that was one of the few bodies
to accumulate and keep records of bodies of knowledge. So bodies of
research and thinking in metaphysical areas that were unacceptable to the
church were conveniently weeded out and not articulated.
2) There are only THEORIES about things-including historical, and there
are historical fallacies of approach. Therefore there have been
differnet ways to look at the knowledge of the past. One theory being
that certain crisis within events creates a great man with special
INSIGHTS that are specifically tailored to the crisis in which the
paradigm may take direction with. Another is deterministic meaning that
the individual is subjugated to the goals of society (this one fits
todays parameters). One great fallacy is Ergo hoc-things and events not
necessarily be causal in relationship. Another is that propogandic ideas
are "spun" on purpose to achieve political or religious ends.
3) There is more than one "type" of science DEDUCTIVE OR NORMAL and
INDUCTIVE OR REVELUTIONARY. It is the PARADIGM not the "truth" that is
typically the subject for further articulation. Deductive of course would
mean there is nothing new in the conclusion (please refer to your logic
studies)and would generalize nature with fundemental DISCOVERED laws. In
INDUCTIVE the conclusion would contain facts or laws not contained in the
initial truth premise. Philosophy is actually more inclusive of truth
premises than science, because of conceptual integration.
4) Sciences study systematically the MATERIAL PHYSICAL world not psychic
material. And contrary to your assertion the goal of the scientific
practice is to ARTICULATE the paradigm academically-not acknowledge
anamoly. The paradigm paradox is that accumulated anamoly FORCE
paradigmatic shifts because of INDUCTION (and typically with much
resistance). If anamolies DO NOT cause a major problem with the original
paradigm they are added to the body of knowledge to further articulate
the paradigm (please refer to Thomas S. Kuhn-The structure of scientific
revolutions, 2nd edition revised). Normal science is puzzle solving
WITHIN a model. We believe in paradigms as a function of our training.
^^^^^^^^
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
5) The perception of order may be the ego's rationalization of
incomprehensible ordering.
6) There are 2 types of knowledge empirical-observable, and rational-that
can be not directly knowable. All knowledge is either inductive
(composite to simple) or deductive simple to composite, so the priciple
of economy can only be applied to inductive (Occams razor).
7) Discovery commences with the awareness of anamoly, i.e., with the
recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced
EXPECTATIONS that govern normal science. (Anamoly and the emergence of
Scientific discoveries VI pg 52).
8) The significance of crisis is the indication they provide that an
occasion for retooling has arrived. This occasion is almost always
FORCED.
9) "Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than
their competitors in solving a few problems that the group of
practitioners has come to recognize as acute. To be more successful is
not however, to be completely sucessful with a single problem or notably
successful with any large number."(The nature of normal science, pg 23).
10) "to describe that research as a strenuous and devoted attempt to
force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional
education." (Thomas Kuhn's definition of research).
11) Correlations exist between the # of diapers changed in Chicago and
the cracks in the sidewalk on Hollywood and Vine. Correlations are not
necessarily relevant. There must be concurrent, external, internal and
other types of validity and reliability.
12) The availability of funds and determinism of the societal structure
directs research and data collection.
13) Paradigm orientation affects perception. "In perceptual terms a
paradigm may be likened to a general set, a tendency to see certain
factors and not to see others."(Abnormal psychology "Subjectivity in
science"-The role of Paradigms, 1996)
14) "It is the theory that decides WHAT we can observe." Albert Einstein
In short, science tends to become rigid. I am not against science I am
FOR clear perspectives. The psychological attributes of the observer also
have influence on the determination of outcomes, collection of data etc.
Now within the pardigm of metaphysics and astrology it must be the
articulators of THOSE paradigms that determine what sorts of tests are
appropriate or not to further articulate IT. So those who are uneducated
in these studies ARE NOT QUALIFIED as either observers or PEER reveiwers
in making that determination. If you wish to offer suggestions or be
informed ABOUT the subjects discussed in these groups, I am more than
willing to assist, but you CANNOT formulate hypothesis or recommend forms
of study and articulation or testing, unless you are capable of
demostrating the ability TO ARTICULATE THAT PARADIGM YOURSELF. It is
simple mechanics:-)
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Edmond Wollmann
Darklady wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote in article <32174...@mail.sdsu.edu>...
> > Darklady wrote:
> > > Science
> > > is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
> > > proved.
> > You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
> ???? Gosh, that's what they told me in all my college science,
> anthropology and archeology courses...but I guess you'd know better?
What that paradigms police themselves? Yeah right. Before Einstein
published his theories in 1905 the mechanists were smug in their belief
there was nothing left to figure out! Anamoly changes paradigms, not its
proponents.
> > > We can stop running those tests now." It says "Well, this sure seems to
> > > be the case and we'll run with it...but let's keep an eye on it in case
> we
> > > discover something affecting our results that we hadn't known about at
> > > the time."
> > Well now! I am afraid you have proven my friend correct here, and I guess
> > I will have to reiterate the philosophy of science a bit for the
> > "scientists" here.
> I've proven your friend nothing, sir, except ignorant.
No you've proven yourself to be killfile material as 90% of what I posted
was straight from academia. And you assume your knowledge base to be
untouchable, you cannot make arrogant implicate disparities as the
primary contrast between the paradigm you articulate and the one I do and
expect to walk out of here unscathed. You started with condescension
and and the sword you live by must be the one you die by.
Please explain;
A) How Thomas Kuhn who wrote the book on the philosophy of science is
incorrect on how science and paradigms function- and you are correct.
B) How you can better articulate a paradigm that you know 0 about better
than its professionals who have studied it AND science for 25 years.
C) How you can peer reveiw or "teach" us gullible idiots about our own
paradigm.
D) What psychological methods you have used to determine that our motives
are less than integral.
> Science
> constantly
> received new information which is evaluates and then evaluates its impact
> upon old information. This in no way proves that using this method in
> inappropriate
> for paranormal research, which currently uses the "I like this idea so it's
> true"
Oh you know this do you? Please show for example where you recieved this
objective analysis of how we do whatever we do. If you cannot reference
every bit of argument as I did in the post you responded to with your own
weapons, I would suspect that you would have enough integrity to retract
it.
> school of thinking and, just like religion, damns anyone who suggests we
> actually
> knock the dust off and see what's under there.
If you conduct your "experiments" with as much assumption as you have
already demonstrated here, I wouldn't trust you to measure me for shoes!
> > 1) science was maintained and established as a paradigm through the
> > university, which was the effect of church that was one of the few bodies
>
> > to accumulate and keep records of bodies of knowledge. So bodies of
> > research and thinking in metaphysical areas that were unacceptable to
>> the church were conveniently weeded out and not articulated.
> This oughta be fascinating information for those of us who studied
> pre-Christian
> religions such as the Greeks and Romans and found them using logical
> paradigms
> to determine information.
The Olmecs were pretty advanced, and the Babylonians were
mathematicians- thats not the point. THE ROMAN/CATHOLOIC CHURCH is the
one that established the university! IT was their invention! Didn't you
take the history of science?
> > 2) There are only THEORIES about things-including historical, and there
> > are historical fallacies of approach. Therefore there have been
> > differnet ways to look at the knowledge of the past.
> (pathetic examples that prove nothing snipped)
> If you actually have a point, please make it.
I've made it and you snipped it, if you actually have an argument with it
you would have rather than snipping! I have every book I referenced and
then some right here, but I am not going to repeat real information again
for you to snip.
> > 3) There is more than one "type" of science DEDUCTIVE OR NORMAL and
> > INDUCTIVE OR REVELUTIONARY.
> I believe you're confusing reasoning and science. You're getting
> caught up
> in philosophy instead of focusing on actual evaluative research.
No, your confusing what YOU THINK SCIENCE IS-with what it is! I'll bet
you think logic and math have nothing to do with each other too. Just
like all the other cynics on here. If you don't understand the philosophy
of a subject-YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT-PERIOD. And it is for this
reason you are not qualified to do anything in this group except learn.
What experience do you have in any metaphysical subject?
>..the sort
> that
> brought us the computer, the telephone line and other objects that would
> never
> exist if the universe you and your "friend" endorse were to exist.
Thats manufacturing, I worked in electro-optics for the US government,
and it doesn't take much science to "invent" a telephone line:-)))). I
cannot speak for Bruce, but I would like to know precisely what
"Universe" it is that you "believe" I endorse?
> > 4) Sciences study systematically the MATERIAL PHYSICAL world not psychic
> > material.
> Science studies the mind.
Science CANNOT study the mind it is ephemeral. Psychology is the paradigm
that studies the psychic material that everyone has, both conscious and
unconscious. Are you sure you went to college?
> Psychic phenomena is alleged to stem from
> the
> brain.
Who said that? Thats a materialists world view, and betrays your lack of
knowledge of the subject matter at hand as I asserted from the beginning.
> Study of psychic phenomena is completely appropriate for science.
Based on what that one line you thought was an argument? An argument must
have a truth premise-if is inductive then the conclusion will logically
follow if it has nothing new in the conclusion that is not contained
within the premise and the form is not fallacious and valid. If it is
inductive, there will be an added element to the conclusion that is not
contained in the premise. Which argument did you present? How is a
subject that bases its conclusions on physical laws can be appropriate
for a subject that does not follow them?
> If an
> object exists it exists in the material physical world...ever heard of
> atoms, energy
> particles or the like?
Yes, but obviously you haven't, because it is not known through the
current standard model of subatomic particles and quantuum mechanics
WHERE SOME OF THEM EXIST! And your statement again is that of the
materialist. Where does dream reality exist? Some can only be determined
to exist by the trajectory and path they reveal upon intense exposure to
gravity when particles are shattered. Ever hear of the particle
accelaraters? Why do you think they need them? Ever hear of an
anti-particle? Gluons? Fermions? Where does a nutrino exist? Is light a
particle or a wave? Where does the photon come from when electrons jump
orbits? What.....
> <snip>
> It should be clear at this point
> > however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
> > enterprise.
> Nor does it claim to be. It is AS objective as a human enterprise
> can be and is as honest as the people running it.
Well if thats your argument then it applies to all paradigms ours
included. At least you are more honest than other skeptics and realize
that there is SOME psychology involved.
> Psychic proponants,
> however, seem to be as crooked as they come since they run from
> scientific inquiry like cockroaches from the 'fridge light.
Well thats probably the most logical argument I have heard yet! Assuming
scientific methods are the only "honest" efforts in the world. Your
statement contains nothing but condescension and reveals you to be only
cynical. There is only emotive thrust and no facts to back it up-except a
psychological determination of behavior, based on some subjective belief
system. Are you expereinced in psychology to make such a determination?
And isn't that a fallacy of generalization to say that "they" run from
scientific inquiry?
> > 5) The perception of order may be the ego's rationalization of
> > incomprehensible ordering.
> You mean: There's just no way we can ever know anything for
> certain so we might as well not try to make sense of anything and just
> accept everything.
I said that? Thats funny, that came straight from my studies in the
history of science told to me by A PHD in chemistry who taught it! It was
one of the considerations to acknowledge in possible fallacious data
recording historically.
> Yeah, and my psychic representatives will fill you
> in on what I think of that for a mere $1.98 a minute (first 30 seconds
> are free). Remember, these are REAL psychics, not the fake ones
> like everyone else is pushing.
Boy you have a comprehensive grasp of the metaphysical sciences, even I
don't know how much those fakirs charge.
> The rest of your post has been snipped because it's obvious that
> you've taken just enough philosophy and science to know how to twist
> them into salty baked snacks.
No, I've taken enough to know better. You've snipped the current thinking
in your own paradigm that you argue for because you really know nothing
about it. And you know nothing of this one so where does that leave you?
> You profess to believe in science and
> then cruficy it as utterly meaningless.
Now please show me where I said science was meaningless. Science is a
very important and valuable addition to the rest of the ways we have of
exploring the universe.
> Of course there are elements
> within the scientific community that become rigid (science does not
> since it is not a person).
But you missed and snipped the point, science does the same as every
other paradigm-including astrology- it looks for information to FURTHER
ARTICULATE THE PARADIGM not break it down with anamoly, but it has other
temptations as well like funding that astrology really is not threatened
with losing.
> But there are always people...authenticly
> educated people.
Are you implying that we are not authentically (authenticly!) educated? I
am still working on my PHD at a very large university in a very large
city in the most populated state in the union what do you want?
>..who are interested in non-traditional areas. But
> you and your "friend" will not embrace them unless they agree with
> you.
More assumptions. I embrace all of them, why would I be there if I
didn't? And there will be colleges soon-the first in Washington state
that will embrace us! You don't have to agree with me, but you best know
what it is I am first, and perhaps learn something of my paradigm before
you think you can run roughshod over it with subjective and meaningless
value judgements.
> Until they're sleeping in your psychic love-bed you refuse to
> credit them with intelligence or integrity.
Until you learn the subjects about which you so boldly speak you will
only succeeed in proving your ignorance and convince those who don't know
both sides that hard headed egos and science go hand-in hand. I would
like to see a successful experiment, but perhaps people can see that the
prosecuting attorney is never going to fairly represent the defendent.
Darklady
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote in article
<32174...@mail.sdsu.edu>...
> Darklady wrote:
>
> > Science
> > is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
> > proved.
>
> You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
???? Gosh, that's what they told me in all my college science,
anthropology and archeology courses...but I guess you'd know better?
>
> > We can stop running those tests now." It says "Well, this sure seems to
> > be the case and we'll run with it...but let's keep an eye on it in case
we
> > discover something affecting our results that we hadn't known about at
> > the time."
>
> Well now! I am afraid you have proven my friend correct here, and I guess
> I will have to reiterate the philosophy of science a bit for the
> "scientists" here.
I've proven your friend nothing, sir, except ignorant. Science
constantly
received new information which is evaluates and then evaluates its impact
upon old information. This in no way proves that using this method in
inappropriate
for paranormal research, which currently uses the "I like this idea so it's
true"
school of thinking and, just like religion, damns anyone who suggests we
actually
knock the dust off and see what's under there.
>
> 1) science was maintained and established as a paradigm through the
> university, which was the effect of church that was one of the few bodies
> to accumulate and keep records of bodies of knowledge. So bodies of
> research and thinking in metaphysical areas that were unacceptable to the
> church were conveniently weeded out and not articulated.
>
This oughta be fascinating information for those of us who studied
pre-Christian
religions such as the Greeks and Romans and found them using logical
paradigms
to determine information.
> 2) There are only THEORIES about things-including historical, and there
> are historical fallacies of approach. Therefore there have been
> differnet ways to look at the knowledge of the past.
(pathetic examples that prove nothing snipped)
If you actually have a point, please make it.
> 3) There is more than one "type" of science DEDUCTIVE OR NORMAL and
> INDUCTIVE OR REVELUTIONARY.
I believe you're confusing reasoning and science. You're getting
caught up
in philosophy instead of focusing on actual evaluative research...the sort
that
brought us the computer, the telephone line and other objects that would
never
exist if the universe you and your "friend" endorse were to exist.
> 4) Sciences study systematically the MATERIAL PHYSICAL world not psychic
> material.
Science studies the mind. Psychic phenomena is alleged to stem from
the
brain. Study of psychic phenomena is completely appropriate for science.
If an
object exists it exists in the material physical world...ever heard of
atoms, energy
particles or the like?
<snip>
It should be clear at this point
> however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
> enterprise.
Nor does it claim to be. It is AS objective as a human enterprise
can be and is as honest as the people running it. Psychic proponants,
however, seem to be as crooked as they come since they run from
scientific inquiry like cockroaches from the 'fridge light.
> 5) The perception of order may be the ego's rationalization of
> incomprehensible ordering.
You mean: There's just no way we can ever know anything for
certain so we might as well not try to make sense of anything and just
accept everything. Yeah, and my psychic representatives will fill you
in on what I think of that for a mere $1.98 a minute (first 30 seconds
are free). Remember, these are REAL psychics, not the fake ones
like everyone else is pushing.
The rest of your post has been snipped because it's obvious that
you've taken just enough philosophy and science to know how to twist
them into salty baked snacks. You profess to believe in science and
then cruficy it as utterly meaningless. Of course there are elements
within the scientific community that become rigid (science does not
since it is not a person). But there are always people...authenticly
educated people...who are interested in non-traditional areas. But
you and your "friend" will not embrace them unless they agree with
you. Until they're sleeping in your psychic love-bed you refuse to
Bruce Daniel Kettler
"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote in article
><32174...@mail.sdsu.edu>...
>> Darklady wrote:
>>
>> > Science
>> > is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
>> > proved.
>>
>> You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
> ???? Gosh, that's what they told me in all my college science,
>anthropology and archeology courses...but I guess you'd know better?
>> > We can stop running those tests now." It says "Well, this sure seems to
>> > be the case and we'll run with it...but let's keep an eye on it in case
>we
>> > discover something affecting our results that we hadn't known about at
>> > the time."
>>
>> Well now! I am afraid you have proven my friend correct here, and I guess
>> I will have to reiterate the philosophy of science a bit for the
>> "scientists" here.
> I've proven your friend nothing, sir, except ignorant.
You not only have not proven me ignorant, but you don't even
address issues as they are written. You write as if I'd written
something I had not. Where have I written anything different,
than what you wrote above, that results, in science, are
changeable? No-where. Yet, you base your assumption that you
are proving me ignorant, on the basis of me having stated
something that I, obviously, did not.
Much worse than ignorance, you write your delusions of what I was
supposed to have written.
I wrote of science, as it is generally practiced today, and
"science" so-called, that is old *ORTHODOX* science. I made a
clear distinction between the two in the original posting,
SWTDAW.
From your postings, you seem to have read, perhaps a line or two
of my writing, then started answering from your impressions.
This is the case with all your writing to me, not just this one.
_________________________________
THE FOLLOWING IS YOUR WRITING:
Science constantly received new information which is evaluates
and then evaluates its impact upon old information. This in no
way proves that using this method in inappropriate for paranormal
research, which currently uses the "I like this idea so it's
true" school of thinking and, just like religion, damns anyone
who suggests we actually knock the dust off and see what's under
there.
__________________________________
Now, since you want to talk about "IGNORANCE," you must know VERY
LITTLE ABOUT PARANORMAL RESEARCH to write the above. It's ok to
be ignorant, but the large capitals come when you first:
CALL *ME* IGNORANT
and then write of things you are
TOTALLY IGNORANT OF
I mean, many people, even very well educated people, know nothing
of paranormal research. That's fine. They don't write about it
with a "smart-alec" attitude," and they don't call others
"IGNORANT," an unfounded statement, as you did me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At least a week ago, you wrote of my posting, SWTDAW, and in
it was the information you are ignorant of, the WEB SITE
that has the page:
Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your writing to Edmond Wollmann:
"Until they're sleeping in your psychic love-bed you refuse to
credit them with intelligence or integrity."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above is a demonstration of excessive, and unfounded, fear.
Nothing either Edmond or myself have written warrant that
reaction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now let's get back to your unfounded statement about paranormal
research. In it, you assert, without reservation:
"...paranormal research, which currently uses the "I like this
idea so it's true" school of thinking and, just like religion,
damns anyone who suggests we actually knock the dust off and see
what's under there."
You might check out some paranormal research at this WEB SITE:
http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc
then select
Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
Look at the HYMAN UTTS discussion, XREF from that page.
Then look at the contents of the subject title:
PSYCHIC TESTING -- LAB RESULTS -- DISCUSSION
Read the following statement, as partially paraphrased by me, and
check it out, and compare it to the expert's statements, at the
WEB SITE cross-referenced from the WEB SITE above, that is,
reference to the Professor Jessica Utt's site. Noted XREF on
that page, selected by clicking on "Scientific Study of Psychic
Phenomena" has both HYMAN and UTTS on it.
________________________________________________
Yes, information transfer occurred outside the five senses.
The experiment met and exceeded all scientific protocols for
design and inference AS JUDGED BY A WELL-KNOWN SKEPTIC
It was PSI, as what else could it be outside the 5
senses?
_________________________________________________
and then compare your findings with the following statement of
yours:
"...paranormal research, which currently uses the "I like this
idea so it's true" school of thinking and, just like religion,
damns anyone who suggests we actually knock the dust off and see
what's under there."
The above shows definate ignorance of certain facts, and
arrogance. You are arrogant to not qualify that with "research I
know of." You are ignorant of what research is being conducted,
that nearly every active "skeptic" on USENET knows of, and
scientific researchers EVERYWHERE know of, whether on USENET or
WHEREVER.
And, then, in the future, when you post, I suggest you:
1. Read carefully what the person wrote, that you are answering,
the whole thing, and don't answer sentence by sentence.
Put your brain in gear, before your fingers.
2. Don't assert anything you do not know. Write that you think
something *might* be, and question it if you are not sure.
3. Dump your "superior" attitude and smart-ass expressions.
or when people respond, they will have no mercy with you.
Follow the above three pieces of advice, and you will save
yourself a great deal of embarrassment. I pity you if you go to
alt.paranet.ufo and get into one of these "smart-ass" things with
Brian Zeiler, bdze...@students.wisc.edu
Bruce Daniel Kettler
dket...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>><4v11rd$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
<snip>
>I don't see how anyone could write so exactly like Dan Pressnell,
>not have had any postings in the USENET archives UNTIL ANSWERING
>MY POSTING.
>**AMAZING COINCIDENCE**
>"She" writes exactly after Dan stops, each time, and it's just
>hard to believe this person's writing is not that of DAN
>PRESSNELL, dpre...@ns.vvm.com
>What's wrong, Dan, did you get discredited, completely
>embarrassed on USENET, so you had to borrow or start another
>account? Come on, Dan, admit it, you've been exposed, and you're
>hiding behind another account.
>Who else in this world writes with quite the degree of delusional
>fever that you do? in the same, exact, convoluted way? They are
>like fingerprints, your words. The anger, long lived, growing,
>burning, and now let loose on your keyboard. It's not new anger
>expressed here, like someone just having gotten acquainted with
>me. No, it's old, pent up, and now released anger, isn't it Dan?
<snip>
>>find until a person has the audacity to question the weaker parts
>>of it...then they earn the title "fanatic" from you. A fanatic is, of
>>course, anyone who dares to question you and who continues to
>>possess a differing opinion.
>Sounds just like Dan Pressnell. So, according to "you" I call
>anyone a fanatic who "dares to question" me... "continues to
>possess a differing opinion."
I did quote Brian Zeiler, bdze...@students.wisc.edu, who with
much detail, explained exactly how you are a fanatic. Perhaps,
Dan Pressnell, that's what has you so upset: calling you a
fanatic. Certainly, nothing in my original post could have
prompted that.
This alleged "woman" has never been called a fanatic, and
according to the USENET archives, was a newbie, until that first
posting to me.
So, who could "she" be, but actually a "he," Dan Pressnell,
dpr...@ns.vvm.com
<snip>
>It must be Dan Pressnell writing to that account, and all the
>symptoms of this fever of his are there, the persistent postings,
>the total distortion, and that it goes
> on...and...on...and...on...and on....
>AND
>I've noted, that other "skeptics" just post, get a reply, then
>maybe post again, and if there's no reply, they quit, but this
>one goes
> on...and...on...and...on...and...on
>with the same ignorance about so many things, the lies, the
>distrortions of what I allegedly wrote, about everything.
>and even if I stop, as Dan always did, "she" will go
> on...and...on...and...on...and...on.
>Totally ridiculous!
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Pet...@mbox200.swipnet.se (Peter M) wrote:
>In article <4v3oeq$m...@electra.saaf.se>,
> pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>-In article <4uuto5$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>-Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>-
>->When people of the SKEP-TI-CULT make up arguments, they reapeat
>->things like
>->
>-> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
>-
>-You disagree with this?
>-
>-If you disagree, you would really claim::
>-
>- EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS DO NOT REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
>-
>-
>-So I have two things to tell you:
>-
>-1. Yesterday I walked down to my local food shop, bought some food,
>-and then I had dinner. Nothing extraordinary, I suppose you'll take
>-my word for this.
>-
>-2. Yesterday I grew some wings om my back. Then I learnt to fly in
>-10 minutes. I flew out in space, past the Moon and the planets, out in
>-interstellar space. I completed a trip around our Galaxy, and returned
>-home -- all in less than 15 minues. This is an extraordinary claim. But
>-since you think extraordinary claims requires no extraordinary proofs,
>-I suppose you'll take my word for this too, right?
>-
>-
>-If you don't take my word for 2., then you too agree that:
>-
>- EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
>-
>-so why complain about that statement?
> You mean that, if someone wanted to prove that there are telepaths, then
>this person should acquire some telepath and torture the creature to cooperation
>like in the good middle ages in Europe?
IF you believe that torture is the only way to "prove" that there are
telepaths, then you are certainly not a scientist. You sound more
like a politician.
If telepathy is real, it can be shown to exist. If it isn't real,
torture away, but don't let the human rights groups know about you
little practice as they tend to frown upon this practice.
> Hm... it's very hard to do this in our ages and there's really no other way
>to prove the thing.
Could you possibly explain how you came to this remarkable conclusion?
>You want maybe to say that some certain religion, which
>glorified these practices in these times is not enough realiable to be trusted
>when they clarify why and on who they primarilly did the job?
??????
> UFO and stuff like that can be doubtful, because there're really no proofs,
I wish you wouldn't use the word proof or proofs. There can be
overwhelming evidence, there can compelling evidence, there can be
sufficent evidence, there can be scant evidence, but there can never
be proof.
And, I agree with you that the evidence for UFOs and the like is at
best doubtful because of the evidence.
>but telepathy? There was already one Inquisition, want some other now???
I think the scientific studies will not only yield better evidence but
be vastly more comfortable. And it is easier to get volunteers!
>..it can be arranged, you know, if persons like for example Hitler could succed
>with his...
Why the elipsis?
>Peter M.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Sigfrid Siwertz---You shouldn't fight to death a shadow. Kill it with a light.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom,
wisdom is not truth, truth is not beauty, beauty is not love
Richard Grant
> >> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
Extraordinary claims?
How about the claim that lies at the center of the Skeptic
world-view -- though it is not often stated explicitly -- that
everything in the Universe can ultimately be explained in terms of the
materialist, reductionist, atomistic paradigm that is generally taken
by Skeptics to be synonymous with "science." Such a thing has *never*
been proven.
Skeptics believe, for instance, that the mysterious nature of
consciousness will someday (perhaps quite soon) be settled by pinning
the whole thing down to fluctuating states of human "wetware" -- the
cognitive machine that is the human brain. But this is simply a
matter of faith. Religious faith, if you will; only here the
"religion" is a kind of anti-religion, a fervent -- almost
fundamentalist -- belief in the infinite extensibility of
reductionism.
Suppose the mind-as-machine model is simply incorrect? Suppose
consciousness is not a material phenomenon at all, but rather a field
phenomenon? This does not make the study of consciousness less
scientific. It just transfers the whole topic to a different area of
discussion -- much as current physical theory transfers our discussion
of the fundamental nature of that which exists from the realm of hard
matter to the realm of energy and fields. Consider:
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY SCRUTINY.
Especially when they are unstated or taken as a "given" of reality, as
is the case with this equation of Science=Materialism.
Skeptics all too often are intellectual bullies. Don't let them
push you around.
--
"Scientific people are always curious and I am going to be scientific.
I keep saying to myself, 'What is it? What is it?' It must be
something. It can't be nothing! I don't know its name so I call it
Magic." (THE SECRET GARDEN) http://www.midcoast.com/~treehaus
Matt Kriebel
Organization: Philadelphia's Complete Internet Provider
Bruce Daniel Kettler has truly gone off the deepend with this accusation.
I would like to present evidence for the defense here.
First the accusation by Bruce Daniel Kettler:
: I don't see how anyone could write so exactly like Dan Pressnell,
: not have had any postings in the USENET archives UNTIL ANSWERING
: MY POSTING.
:
: **AMAZING COINCIDENCE**
:
: "She" writes exactly after Dan stops, each time, and it's just
: hard to believe this person's writing is not that of DAN
: PRESSNELL, dpre...@ns.vvm.com
:
: What's wrong, Dan, did you get discredited, completely
: embarrassed on USENET, so you had to borrow or start another
: account? Come on, Dan, admit it, you've been exposed, and you're
: hiding behind another account.
First of all there is no evidence for Kettler accusation beyond his own
beleif that anyone who argues with him is deluded. And that somehow one
all objections now all seem the same to him. It is not possible for him
to concieve of more than a few persons (inevitably labeled skeptics by
Kettler wether thay are or aren't) objecting to his nonsense attacks on
skeptics.
But here's the harder evidence:
"darklady" posts from s site that lists its number on to title, that
number listed is 503-240-8200. I should point out that that is not an
'1-800' number and is located in the '503' area code. 503 is in the state
of Oregon.
Dan Pressnell posts from vvm.com which has it's web site at
http://www.vvm.com on that first page the location is given as Temple, TX
Now it is concievable that Dan cld set an account by long distance or
that he travels to Orgeonon business. But the likelyhood of this has gone
way down.
: Who else in this world writes with quite the degree of delusional
: fever that you do? in the same, exact, convoluted way? They are
: like fingerprints, your words. The anger, long lived, growing,
: burning, and now let loose on your keyboard. It's not new anger
: expressed here, like someone just having gotten acquainted with
: me. No, it's old, pent up, and now released anger, isn't it Dan?
:
You have accused everone you ever argued with odoing the same thing. That
makes for a mighty big fingerprint.
<The rest of his ranting has been deleted>
Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
Not so much a shotgun approach, more like a double-loaded grapeshot approach.
Doug O'Neal
In article <321855...@midcoast.com> Richard Grant <tree...@midcoast.com> writes:
Excuse me for becoming involved in this cross-post, but when I see B.S. I
have to reply.
> > >> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
> Extraordinary claims?
> How about the claim that lies at the center of the Skeptic
> world-view -- though it is not often stated explicitly -- that
> everything in the Universe can ultimately be explained in terms of the
> materialist, reductionist, atomistic paradigm that is generally taken
> by Skeptics to be synonymous with "science." Such a thing has *never*
> been proven.
It's been demonstrated countless times, however. Whenever we use a
scientific law to make a prediction about the world and it comes true,
we demonstrate that the world (universe) can be understood in terms of
such laws, and that such laws apply universally.
BTW, there is no community of people who call themselves "Skeptics".
There are skeptical people, certainly, but that particular designation --
capital S and all -- is something made up by believers in the paranormal
to apply to anyone who doesn't take their claims at face value, and instead
asks for convincing demonstration.
> Skeptics believe, for instance, that the mysterious nature of
> consciousness will someday (perhaps quite soon) be settled by pinning
> the whole thing down to fluctuating states of human "wetware" -- the
> cognitive machine that is the human brain. But this is simply a
> matter of faith. Religious faith, if you will; only here the
> "religion" is a kind of anti-religion, a fervent -- almost
> fundamentalist -- belief in the infinite extensibility of
> reductionism.
Every "Skeptic" believes this?
For myself, in my Pagan religious view,
I would be overjoyed if we someday explained consciousness in a purely
molecular way, in terms of the physics and electro-chemistry of the brain.
It would increase my feeling of reverence in Nature, that it was able to
make something so intricate as consciousness from the simple laws and
materials of the universe.
> Suppose the mind-as-machine model is simply incorrect? Suppose
> consciousness is not a material phenomenon at all, but rather a field
> phenomenon? This does not make the study of consciousness less
> scientific. It just transfers the whole topic to a different area of
> discussion -- much as current physical theory transfers our discussion
> of the fundamental nature of that which exists from the realm of hard
> matter to the realm of energy and fields. Consider:
The thing is, in the past every time something has been ascribed to a
divine force or principle, or the mysterious something you're trying to
invoke in consciousness, it's later turned out to have a purely physical
explanation, from the motion of the planets in the solar system to the
circulation of the blood. Given that track record, there's no reason to
believe it will fail in the case of consciousness.
BTW, fields are just as much an aspect of "materialism" as matter is.
Fields are generated by matter.
> Especially when they are unstated or taken as a "given" of reality, as
> is the case with this equation of Science=Materialism.
Again, there's never been a need for anything else in science, so why expect
there to be something now? And again, that assumption is tested everytime
we use science to make a prediction -- or everytime you throw a rock up into
the air with the expectation that it will come back down.
> Skeptics all too often are intellectual bullies. Don't let them
> push you around.
Skepticism is the trait of not believing a claim until you have seen
a demonstration convincing enough to exclude all other possible
explanations. It is an admirable intellectual trait and is something that
our whole society could use more of.
Doug
Bruce Daniel Kettler
"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
><4v11rd$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>>
>> I don't write in worthless generalities. There are certain usual
>> practices of the SKEP-TI-CULT types. I pointed out what they
>> are.
> You don't write in worthless generalities, you write in
>worthless contradictions, Bruce.
<snip>
>You whine a little about that silly scientific method thing and how
>it shouldn't always be used.
And, you lie about what I wrote, as I never wrote anything about
a "how it [scientific method] shouldn't always be used." I've
quit with the "you haven't read my post" thing, and am headed for
"you lied about my post," as it is now becoming too obvious.
I don't see how anyone could write so exactly like Dan Pressnell,
not have had any postings in the USENET archives UNTIL ANSWERING
MY POSTING.
**AMAZING COINCIDENCE**
"She" writes exactly after Dan stops, each time, and it's just
hard to believe this person's writing is not that of DAN
PRESSNELL, dpre...@ns.vvm.com
What's wrong, Dan, did you get discredited, completely
embarrassed on USENET, so you had to borrow or start another
account? Come on, Dan, admit it, you've been exposed, and you're
hiding behind another account.
Who else in this world writes with quite the degree of delusional
fever that you do? in the same, exact, convoluted way? They are
like fingerprints, your words. The anger, long lived, growing,
burning, and now let loose on your keyboard. It's not new anger
expressed here, like someone just having gotten acquainted with
me. No, it's old, pent up, and now released anger, isn't it Dan?
>And then you tell us that SKEP-TI-
>CULT people are filled with generalities.
I wrote that ????!!!!!
><snip>Your initial post sounds
>find until a person has the audacity to question the weaker parts
>of it...then they earn the title "fanatic" from you. A fanatic is, of
>course, anyone who dares to question you and who continues to
>possess a differing opinion.
Sounds just like Dan Pressnell. So, according to "you" I call
anyone a fanatic who "dares to question" me... "continues to
possess a differing opinion."
The above, what you write, is absolutely ridiculous. It's not
shown either by any statement of mine, or by any of my writing
that can even just be inferred. I have never witnessed a
"newbie" come on to USENET and write such ridiculous nonsense.
Why doesn't "she" pick someone else? Why me, and the two people
that
DAN PRESSNELL
dpre...@ns.vvm.com
were the MOST UPSET WITH,
Edmond Wollmann
and
MYSELF
just before he stopped posting over a month ago.
Earl Baker
It is interesting that you think they are the same person. vvm.com is
located in Texas while spiritone.com is located in Oregon. If they are
one and the same, he/she either moved or has a lot of long-distance
money to burn. Actually a telnet account would get around that problem,
come to think of it :)
--
__________sss k k y y w w eee a sss eee l __________
_________ss kk yy www ee aaa ss ee l _________
_______sss k k y w w eee a a sss eee llll________
dun...@skypoint.com||||||skyw...@skypoint.com
Dan Pressnell
dket...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>>Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>><4v11rd$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>>>
>>> I don't write in worthless generalities. There are certain usual
>>> practices of the SKEP-TI-CULT types. I pointed out what they
>>> are.
>> You don't write in worthless generalities, you write in
>>worthless contradictions, Bruce.
><snip>
>>You whine a little about that silly scientific method thing and how
>>it shouldn't always be used.
>And, you lie about what I wrote, as I never wrote anything about
>a "how it [scientific method] shouldn't always be used." I've
>quit with the "you haven't read my post" thing, and am headed for
>"you lied about my post," as it is now becoming too obvious.
>I don't see how anyone could write so exactly like Dan Pressnell,
>not have had any postings in the USENET archives UNTIL ANSWERING
>MY POSTING.
Huh? You talking about me? Do you find it inconceivable that a
person has writing experience before posting to usenet? What the heck
are you saying? It sounds pretty stupid to me.
>**AMAZING COINCIDENCE**
What's an amazing coincidence?
>"She" writes exactly after Dan stops, each time, and it's just
>hard to believe this person's writing is not that of DAN
>PRESSNELL, dpre...@ns.vvm.com
Huh?
>What's wrong, Dan, did you get discredited, completely
>embarrassed on USENET, so you had to borrow or start another
>account? Come on, Dan, admit it, you've been exposed, and you're
>hiding behind another account.
I have? I am? When did I get this new account? WHERE is this new
account? How do I access it?
>Who else in this world writes with quite the degree of delusional
>fever that you do? in the same, exact, convoluted way? They are
>like fingerprints, your words. The anger, long lived, growing,
>burning, and now let loose on your keyboard. It's not new anger
>expressed here, like someone just having gotten acquainted with
>me. No, it's old, pent up, and now released anger, isn't it Dan?
Damn right I'm mad! I just now found out that I've got an account I
didn't know about, and at the same time I learn that somebody else has
been using it before I got a chance to use it, and even writing
articles under a name other than my own! I might get a bill for this
account that I didn't know about until now! And if this is a skeptic
writing under not-my name, with my unknown account, I might get kicked
off the provider (whoever it is). And if I do get kicked off, I won't
even get the notification from the provider, because I don't know how
to log on to the account to get my mail! Wouldn't you be mad if all
this happened to you????
>>And then you tell us that SKEP-TI-
>>CULT people are filled with generalities.
>I wrote that ????!!!!!
Well, since you are asking me, yes, I think you did write that.
>><snip>Your initial post sounds
>>find until a person has the audacity to question the weaker parts
>>of it...then they earn the title "fanatic" from you. A fanatic is, of
>>course, anyone who dares to question you and who continues to
>>possess a differing opinion.
>Sounds just like Dan Pressnell. So, according to "you" I call
>anyone a fanatic who "dares to question" me... "continues to
>possess a differing opinion."
Well, since you are asking me, yes.
>The above, what you write, is absolutely ridiculous. It's not
>shown either by any statement of mine, or by any of my writing
>that can even just be inferred. I have never witnessed a
>"newbie" come on to USENET and write such ridiculous nonsense.
>Why doesn't "she" pick someone else? Why me, and the two people
>that
> DAN PRESSNELL
> dpre...@ns.vvm.com
>were the MOST UPSET WITH,
> Edmond Wollmann
> and
> MYSELF
>just before he stopped posting over a month ago.
I was upset with Edmond Wollmann? Where did you get that idea? I
think I posted some replies to his postings, but I don't recall being
upset with him. Maybe you think that posting replies to somebody
indicates that the replier is upset? Is this part of your scientific
method?
>It must be Dan Pressnell writing to that account, and all the
>symptoms of this fever of his are there, the persistent postings,
>the total distortion, and that it goes
> on...and...on...and...on...and on....
Writing to WHAT account? Bruce, since you know so much more about
this account than I do, please tell me about it!!! How much is this
other account costing me? This is terrible... just terrible....
>AND
>I've noted, that other "skeptics" just post, get a reply, then
>maybe post again, and if there's no reply, they quit, but this
>one goes
> on...and...on...and...on...and...on
>with the same ignorance about so many things, the lies, the
>distrortions of what I allegedly wrote, about everything.
>and even if I stop, as Dan always did, "she" will go
> on...and...on...and...on...and...on.
What's this "she" in quotation marks? Are you saying that it's a
female using my account, which I didn't know I had? That narrows it
down some! Thanks for the help, Bruce. Is there anything else you
can tell me about this mess? I need your psychic help in tracking
down this female who is using the account I didn't know I had!
>Totally ridiculous!
Really weird....
Anyway, thanks for calling this to my attention, Bruce. I bet I look
like a fool! But thanks to your keen perception and your logical,
scientific way of looking at things, this might all get straightened
out somehow!
Dan
Dan Pressnell
got...@netaxs.com (Matt Kriebel) wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler has truly gone off the deepend with this accusation.
>
> I would like to present evidence for the defense here.
I was hoping somebody could tell me what's going on! Is it really
possible that I got another internet account without knowing it? Could
it be that I've really been posting articles under another name without
remembering it??? This is scary!
> First the accusation by Bruce Daniel Kettler:
>
> : I don't see how anyone could write so exactly like Dan Pressnell,
> : not have had any postings in the USENET archives UNTIL ANSWERING
> : MY POSTING.
> :
> : **AMAZING COINCIDENCE**
> :
> : "She" writes exactly after Dan stops, each time, and it's just
> : hard to believe this person's writing is not that of DAN
> : PRESSNELL, dpre...@ns.vvm.com
> :
> : What's wrong, Dan, did you get discredited, completely
> : embarrassed on USENET, so you had to borrow or start another
> : account? Come on, Dan, admit it, you've been exposed, and you're
> : hiding behind another account.
>
> First of all there is no evidence for Kettler accusation beyond his own
> beleif that anyone who argues with him is deluded. And that somehow one
> all objections now all seem the same to him. It is not possible for him
> to concieve of more than a few persons (inevitably labeled skeptics by
> Kettler wether thay are or aren't) objecting to his nonsense attacks on
> skeptics.
>
> But here's the harder evidence:
>
> "darklady" posts from s site that lists its number on to title, that
> number listed is 503-240-8200. I should point out that that is not an
> '1-800' number and is located in the '503' area code. 503 is in the state
> of Oregon.
OH MY GOD!!! Am I going to get a long distance bill for accessing that
new provider that I don't remember??? WHY THE HELL DID I PICK A
PROVIDER THAT FAR AWAY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY LOCAL ONES!!!!!
> Dan Pressnell posts from vvm.com which has it's web site at
> http://www.vvm.com on that first page the location is given as Temple, TX
Man, I must be crazy! Here I am with a local account and I'm making
long distance calls to Oregon to post usenet articles!!!!
Bruce was right! I'm insane, and he's logical, scientific, and
rational!!!!
Maybe if I sent 35 dollars to Bruce, he could have his psychics tell me
what's going on? Think that will work?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
dket...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
> >"Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> I did quote Brian Zeiler, bdze...@students.wisc.edu, who with
> much detail, explained exactly how you are a fanatic. Perhaps,
> Dan Pressnell, that's what has you so upset: calling you a
> fanatic. Certainly, nothing in my original post could have
> prompted that.
>
> This alleged "woman" has never been called a fanatic, and
> according to the USENET archives, was a newbie, until that first
> posting to me.
>
> So, who could "she" be, but actually a "he," Dan Pressnell,
> dpr...@ns.vvm.com
OMIGOD!!!! This is worse than I thought! Now I'm a woman, too!
Okay, Bruce, I admit it. You have now shown me to be a paranoid. Oh,
Lord, why can't I be stable, like Bruce Daniel Kettler? Why do I have
to be paranoid, and so unlike him?
> Perception -- http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc - Opening
> -- -- then select - Doors
> Creation-- -- Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena - That
> -- -- ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| - Lead
> Reality -- -- The Internet Fax Psychic Connection - Home
Finally, I really do appreciate your perception and reality! You have
shown me the way to truly understanding the world around me.
I have flipped, as you point out!
Do you think your psychics could help me, Bruce?
Dan
Darklady
Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<4v8t1j$s...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>...
> "Darklady" <dark...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>
> >Bruce Daniel Kettler <dket...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> ><4v11rd$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> >You whine a little about that silly scientific method thing and how
> >it shouldn't always be used.
>
> And, you lie about what I wrote, as I never wrote anything about
> a "how it [scientific method] shouldn't always be used." I've
> quit with the "you haven't read my post" thing, and am headed for
> "you lied about my post," as it is now becoming too obvious.
Of course it has, Bruce. I'm a very mean and very bad woman
who posted something you didn't agree with and refused to cut you
any slack...it only follows that I'm a liar, too. Keep up the good work,
Bruce. Soon you'll have me being the second gunman on the grassy
knoll.
>
> I don't see how anyone could write so exactly like Dan Pressnell,
> not have had any postings in the USENET archives UNTIL ANSWERING
> MY POSTING.
Well, my reptile brained friend, that would be because I only just got
around to checking out the newsgroups. I've got a very real paper trail
if you need to authenticate me...try http://www.xmag.com. You'll
find that I'm the editor of that magazine and that I write a monthly
column.
You'll also find that Dan's e-mail address (as you gave it to me) is no
longer
valid.
>
> **AMAZING COINCIDENCE**
Yeah...amazing. Jezus, you're paranoid. How many other people have
entered this newsgroup since Dan left? Let's see a show of hands. Oh, my
god! They're all Dan Pressnell! You know, my boyfriend added this
newsgroup
to my list because he thought I might get a kick out of it. Imagine his
shock
when he finds out that it's actually a Swedish Sex Change Operation!
> What's wrong, Dan, did you get discredited, completely
> embarrassed on USENET, so you had to borrow or start another
> account? Come on, Dan, admit it, you've been exposed, and you're
> hiding behind another account.
Man, I'm glad I'm not you. I may goof once in a while but I don't
make monster mistakes like this. I hope you have the good sense
to at least blush when you realize what a dork you've been on this
one.
I have never witnessed a
> "newbie" come on to USENET and write such ridiculous nonsense.
> Why doesn't "she" pick someone else? Why me, and the two people
> that
>
> DAN PRESSNELL
> dpre...@ns.vvm.com
>
> were the MOST UPSET WITH,
>
> Edmond Wollmann
> and
> MYSELF
Ummm...you got lucky? Shit, I don't know what your karma is,
Bruce. I'm here, I'm new and I posted something to you that you
answered...I responded and so it goes. You didn't make a lot of
sense to me and I just managed to piss you off. Is this such an
incomprehesible event?
>
> just before he stopped posting over a month ago.
>
> It must be Dan Pressnell writing to that account, and all the
> symptoms of this fever of his are there, the persistent postings,
> the total distortion, and that it goes
>
> on...and...on...and...on...and on....
Fever? I took aspirin earlier, I should feel better soon.
Persistant posting? What the fuck do YOU do? I'm only responding to
your posts...so why are YOU persistently posting? Heck, I don't think
there's even a half dozen posts from me, Bruce. You're exaggerating.
> I've noted, that other "skeptics" just post, get a reply, then
> maybe post again, and if there's no reply, they quit, but this
> one goes
>
> on...and...on...and...on...and...on
Bruce...that's commonly called a conversation. But I doubt you
get many of those, do you? Apparently not, seeing as coming across
one sends you into a frenzy of paranoia.
Bert Fannin
dun...@skypoint.com (Earl Baker) wrote:
>It is interesting that you think they are the same person. vvm.com is
>located in Texas while spiritone.com is located in Oregon. If they are
>one and the same, he/she either moved or has a lot of long-distance
>money to burn. Actually a telnet account would get around that problem,
>come to think of it :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Mon 08-19-96 20:08:00
Earl:
> Actually a telnet account would get around that problem, come to
> think of it :)
I wonder if that is how the good Dr. Vidicus seems to be
coming from all points at the same time. :->
Berticus Rex
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.2
Comment: If the Message is not PGP signed, it did not come from me!
iQCVAgUBMhksPL3UmF/fGov9AQHlpwP/W5b/c3jkGbTqm2M9Rqo3yBicTzsfrhNr
TKxvjnQc0le5yNTVwEmsLIbF20ONMoyVRvxWCRT5moZwPAz8mwCzodZkieTSqve7
mGj1w/G/pdrLkbTPnX3XMdXG1FVTOSGFEmRMNwQJCBPpswcMyec5F9+Hq+9+oz4e
WDWKmmny3vo=
=7Rfr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Darklady
> Darklady wrote:
>
> > > > Science
> > > > is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says
"yup...we're
> > > > proved.
>
> > > You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
> > ???? Gosh, that's what they told me in all my college science,
> > anthropology and archeology courses...but I guess you'd know better?
>
> What that paradigms police themselves? Yeah right. Before Einstein
> published his theories in 1905 the mechanists were smug in their belief
> there was nothing left to figure out! Anamoly changes paradigms, not its
> proponents.
What are you talking about? You're talking about people...people who
can be shortsighted. I'm talking about science...which is not a person,
although
people use science to understand the world around them. I'm perfectly
willing
to listen to paranormal defenders but only if they're willing to put their
"facts" to
the test. Sure, science can't detect everything because there is much
we're
still learning...but we learn it using logic...not by declaring unprovable
theories
to be fact.
> No you've proven yourself to be killfile material as 90% of what I posted
> was straight from academia.
Imagine my suicide note upon learning this.
And you assume your knowledge base to be
> untouchable, you cannot make arrogant implicate disparities as the
> primary contrast between the paradigm you articulate and the one I do and
> expect to walk out of here unscathed. You started with condescension
> and and the sword you live by must be the one you die by.
> Please explain;
>
> A) How Thomas Kuhn who wrote the book on the philosophy of science is
> incorrect on how science and paradigms function- and you are correct.
> B) How you can better articulate a paradigm that you know 0 about better
> than its professionals who have studied it AND science for 25 years.
> C) How you can peer reveiw or "teach" us gullible idiots about our own
> paradigm.
> D) What psychological methods you have used to determine that our motives
> are less than integral.
>
This is a fairly childish technique, don't you think? How about if I
demand
that you explain a number of things that you're not familiar with by case?
As
for your temper tantrum in B and C...it's fairly foolish to start the "you
can't be
as wise as my pet experts" argument. I can find an "expert" to contradict
nearly
anything you put forth and you can do the same with me. The point is to
find
reputable experts on either side (both is best) who can explain their views
clearly.
As for your paradigm...I'm assuming you're referring to the general
paranormal
belief system...Jesus, do you think you're some sort of ecosystem that I've
stumbled across for the first time? I was raised in a pro-paranormal
house.
As for D...less than integral to what? Since I'm now killfile fodder (Oh,
the
wound) I won't expect you to respond...and if you do respond, I'll know
you're
not a man of your word. ;)
> > Science
> > constantly
> > received new information which is evaluates and then evaluates its
impact
> > upon old information. This in no way proves that using this method in
> > inappropriate
> > for paranormal research, which currently uses the "I like this idea so
it's
> > true"
>
> Oh you know this do you? Please show for example where you recieved this
> objective analysis of how we do whatever we do.
Ummm...how about the many people who believe firmly in OOB
experiences?
There's nothing to substantiate any of them, most can be firmly disproved
if you
just take the time to look around, yet there's a rabid following. Hell,
I've even been
told by a guy who wrote a book about them that my own near-death experience
couldn't possibly have happened because I didn't have a mystic tunnel and
light
with dead relatives-esque experience. I don't pretend to be able to quote
instances
chapter and verse (because I'm not a SKEP-TI-CULT member...I've got a life)
but
I'm not talking out of my ass. I've met, I've talked, I've listened, and
I've come
away unconvinced.
If you cannot reference
> every bit of argument as I did in the post you responded to with your own
> weapons, I would suspect that you would have enough integrity to retract
> it.
I would do so (because I have more integrity than is healthy for any
one
person) but you see...this isn't my obsession...it's yours. I'm simply
responding
in general terms because I see flaws and I want to point them out. Then I
get
this paranormal follower's jaws clamped on my throat and I hear this voice
demanding
that I provide all sorts of obscure references. I can find them...probably
got them in
the house or can get them from friends. But, frankly, I've got other fish
to par boil.
>
> > school of thinking and, just like religion, damns anyone who suggests
we
> > actually
> > knock the dust off and see what's under there.
>
> If you conduct your "experiments" with as much assumption as you have
> already demonstrated here, I wouldn't trust you to measure me for shoes!
Not a bad bit of skepticism (gasp) on your part since I have no idea
how
to measure for shoes. As for my "experiments"...I've never claimed to be a
scientist. My training is in history and anthropology and I do quite well
at
those things, thank you for asking.
> The Olmecs were pretty advanced, and the Babylonians were
> mathematicians- thats not the point. THE ROMAN/CATHOLOIC CHURCH is the
> one that established the university! IT was their invention! Didn't you
> take the history of science?
No, I didn't take the history of science. But I did take the history
of religion. :)
My point was simply that the Greeks (etc.) were scientists long before some
Pope
finally gave up and admitted that the sun wasn't the center of the universe
after all.
But you are correct that, as far as Christianity goes, the RCC got the
whole scholarly
thing going some time ago and kept a steely eye on it.
> I've made it and you snipped it, if you actually have an argument with it
> you would have rather than snipping! I have every book I referenced and
> then some right here, but I am not going to repeat real information again
> for you to snip.
Ah. Since I didn't see your point it is clearly my fault that you
made it
so vaguely. I see why you're a friend of Bruce's...he has a tendency to
lose
his point in a landslide of words and examples, too. Always blame the
reader, Edmond.
>
> No, your confusing what YOU THINK SCIENCE IS-with what it is! I'll bet
> you think logic and math have nothing to do with each other too.
Gosh, Edmond...you mean they do? (idiot girl giggle supplied gratus)
Yeah,
I thought logic was somehow related to tatting or maybe gussetting. Guess
what?
It is!
Just
> like all the other cynics on here. If you don't understand the philosophy
> of a subject-YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT-PERIOD. And it is for this
> reason you are not qualified to do anything in this group except learn.
Attention, class. This is what we (in the idiot cynic world) call an
ad hominum attack.
> What experience do you have in any metaphysical subject?
Well, since I tend to think it's all a raft of shit, I'd say none.
However, as I said, my
parents both were believers, I've had several friends who were believers
and then there was
that getting crushed to death in the car thing that happened in 1991.
Sorry that I can't
tell you my grandfather was Crowley or anything. Hey, I'm friends with a
High Priest of the
Church of Satan...do I get points for that?
>
> >..the sort
> > that
> > brought us the computer, the telephone line and other objects that
would
> > never
> > exist if the universe you and your "friend" endorse were to exist.
>
> Thats manufacturing, I worked in electro-optics for the US government,
> and it doesn't take much science to "invent" a telephone line:-)))).
A telephone is simply manufacturing? A computer, too? My point, which
I have to believe you already know, is that all of the things which we take
for
granted today, was impossible at some point or other in the past. Had my
great
grandmother seen a computer she would have been convinced it was something
supernatural...possibly evil. She might be right on that second
point...(ponder)
> cannot speak for Bruce, but I would like to know precisely what
> "Universe" it is that you "believe" I endorse?
I wouldn't even speculate.
>
> > > 4) Sciences study systematically the MATERIAL PHYSICAL world not
psychic
> > > material.
> > Science studies the mind.
>
> Science CANNOT study the mind it is ephemeral. Psychology is the paradigm
> that studies the psychic material that everyone has, both conscious and
> unconscious. Are you sure you went to college?
You know, I was sure that the lithium my boyfriend takes was the
result of
some sort of scientific research into biochemistry but now that you've made
it
so clear I can't help but see your wisdom in all things.
>
> > Psychic phenomena is alleged to stem from
> > the
> > brain.
>
> Who said that? Thats a materialists world view, and betrays your lack of
> knowledge of the subject matter at hand as I asserted from the beginning.
Educate me...does it come from aliens? God? The stars? How does
a person with ESP have this ability if their brain is not involved in some
way.
Hell, how does a person tie their shoes if their brain isn't involved in
some
way.
>
> > Study of psychic phenomena is completely appropriate for science.
>
> Based on what that one line you thought was an argument? An argument must
> have a truth premise-if is inductive then the conclusion will logically
> follow if it has nothing new in the conclusion that is not contained
> within the premise and the form is not fallacious and valid. If it is
> inductive, there will be an added element to the conclusion that is not
> contained in the premise. Which argument did you present? How is a
> subject that bases its conclusions on physical laws can be appropriate
> for a subject that does not follow them?
In contrast...why should I believe word one coming from a person who
endorses something which can't be proven or disproven? I give you as much
belief as I give to the beliefs of Christians, Islamics, Jews and other
deity
worshippers whose beliefs, conveniently, are untestable.
>
> > If an
> > object exists it exists in the material physical world...ever heard of
> > atoms, energy
> > particles or the like?
>
> Yes, but obviously you haven't, because it is not known through the
> current standard model of subatomic particles and quantuum mechanics
> WHERE SOME OF THEM EXIST!
Yeah, well I don't know where some of my ex-boyfriends exist but that
doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere.
> > It should be clear at this point
> > > however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
> > > enterprise.
> > Nor does it claim to be. It is AS objective as a human enterprise
> > can be and is as honest as the people running it.
>
> Well if thats your argument then it applies to all paradigms ours
> included. At least you are more honest than other skeptics and realize
> that there is SOME psychology involved.
It was never my intention to suggest otherwise and I apologize if I
gave that impression. Honest is one thing that I AM...if I weren't, I
wouldn't get into as much trouble as I do. :)
>
> > Psychic proponants,
> > however, seem to be as crooked as they come since they run from
> > scientific inquiry like cockroaches from the 'fridge light.
>
> Well thats probably the most logical argument I have heard yet! Assuming
> scientific methods are the only "honest" efforts in the world. Your
> statement contains nothing but condescension and reveals you to be only
> cynical. There is only emotive thrust and no facts to back it up-except a
> psychological determination of behavior, based on some subjective belief
> system. Are you expereinced in psychology to make such a determination?
> And isn't that a fallacy of generalization to say that "they" run from
> scientific inquiry?
Please carefully note the use of the word "seems" to qualify my
statement.
Thank you.
>
> > > 5) The perception of order may be the ego's rationalization of
> > > incomprehensible ordering.
> > You mean: There's just no way we can ever know anything for
> > certain so we might as well not try to make sense of anything and just
> > accept everything.
>
> I said that? Thats funny, that came straight from my studies in the
> history of science told to me by A PHD in chemistry who taught it! It was
> one of the considerations to acknowledge in possible fallacious data
> recording historically.
Upon rereading this statement (which didn't make sense at the time...
had a cat trying to drag me to bed) I understand it and, in fact, reading
something about it...but it was psychology so I don't get the impression
it would interest you.
>
> > Yeah, and my psychic representatives will fill you
> > in on what I think of that for a mere $1.98 a minute (first 30 seconds
> > are free). Remember, these are REAL psychics, not the fake ones
> > like everyone else is pushing.
>
> Boy you have a comprehensive grasp of the metaphysical sciences, even I
> don't know how much those fakirs charge.
Less than I quoted. Actually, since I spend too much time at this
computer
(it's part of that being-a-writer-thing) I get to see that fucking Psychic
Friends
Network (or whatever) commercial wayyy too many times.
> Are you implying that we are not authentically (authenticly!) educated? I
> am still working on my PHD at a very large university in a very large
> city in the most populated state in the union what do you want?
I'm implying that there are a lot of people out there claiming to be
capable of doing all kinds of things and they seem to be welcomed with
opened arms by way too many paranormal believers without being expected
to show that they're for real. Being able to tell you amazing things about
yourself at a reading doesn't qualify a person for anything except having a
really good talent for empathy and detail, for instance. Being deathly ill
and remembering a tennis shoe on a ledge that you "couldn't possibly
have seen" does not prove one has flown around the hospital grounds,
as another example.
Earl Baker
In article <32196D...@ns.vvm.com>,
Dan Pressnell <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
>got...@netaxs.com (Matt Kriebel) wrote:
>
>> Bruce Daniel Kettler has truly gone off the deepend with this accusation.
>>
>> I would like to present evidence for the defense here.
>
>I was hoping somebody could tell me what's going on! Is it really
>possible that I got another internet account without knowing it? Could
>it be that I've really been posting articles under another name without
>remembering it??? This is scary!
Perhaps some "recovered memory therapy" is in order. Once the therapist
discovers all the secret sexual perversion that's been going on with
your multiple ISP's, there'll be no end to the lawsuits you can file! :)
Earl Baker
What did you mean when you said you were "crushed to death" in a car?
In article <01bb8dae$ba724ee0$5e6d...@darklady.spiritone.com>,
Dan Pressnell
Okay, Darklady. The game is up. You've been using my account! I bet
you thought you could get away with it just because I didn't know I
had the account, and I never heard of spiritnet!
But Bruce Daniel Kettler knows about all the games of skepti-cult
members like you. He sees through you quickly. He has alerted me to
the fact that you are using a name different than mine to post to my
account, which I didn't know I had, trying to fool people into
thinking that it was not me posting under a name other than my own!
I think you better explain yourself. Bruce is very very smart, and
his logical mind wouldn't make a mistake like this if it weren't true.
You won't get anywhere arguing that it's your account, and you won't
get anywhere with proof that it's your account, because smart people
like Bruce Daniel Kettler have discovered a new scientific method
where proof don't mean beans!
His reality structure is that you are me, and there's no way you are
going to change that! So you have got some explaining to do!
Dan
Bud Jamison
DP> But Bruce Daniel Kettler knows about all the games of skepti-cult
DP> members like you. He sees through you quickly. He has alerted me to
DP> the fact that you are using a name different than mine to post to my
DP> account, which I didn't know I had, trying to fool people into
DP> thinking that it was not me posting under a name other than my own!
Could you please say that again, in English??
... Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes...
Peter M
JAM
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>Darklady wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote in article <32174...@mail.sdsu.edu>...
>> > Darklady wrote:
>> > > Science
>> > > is constantly trying to prove itself wrong...it never says "yup...we're
>> > > proved.
>> > You are absolutely 180 degrees wrong.
<SNIP>
I am a scientist (biomedical researcher, Ph.D., the whole bit) and I
agree with you 100% on this one.
<SNIP>
>> Science constantly received new information which is evaluates and then evaluates its impact
>> upon old information. This in no way proves that using this method in
>> inappropriate for paranormal research, which currently uses the "I like this idea so it's
>> true"
>Oh you know this do you? Please show for example where you recieved this
>objective analysis of how we do whatever we do. If you cannot reference
>every bit of argument as I did in the post you responded to with your own
>weapons, I would suspect that you would have enough integrity to retract
>it.
Let me ask you this question, as you have seem to have an objective,
open mind. (Interpret the following as a "cordial" question, not a
"argumentative" or "confrontational" argument). Do you think that the
science method cannot be used to evaluate/research paranormal
phenomena?
>If you conduct your "experiments" with as much assumption as you have
>already demonstrated here, I wouldn't trust you to measure me for shoes!
>
Exactly right! You cannot set out to debunk or prove, only to test.
><SNIP>
>> > 4) Sciences study systematically the MATERIAL PHYSICAL world not psychic
>> > material.
>> Science studies the mind.
>Science CANNOT study the mind it is ephemeral. Psychology is the paradigm
>that studies the psychic material that everyone has, both conscious and
>unconscious. Are you sure you went to college?
However, science can studt the physical manifestations of the
paranormal phenomena. Even if you cannot measure the metaphysical
force which moves objects telekineticall, you can still measure its
physical manifestation (contact-free movement). You cannot "measure"
psychic abilities, but can measure the end point - finding lost
people, unsolved crimes, prophetic insights, etc. Otherwise, how
would we know that they are psychics : ) ?
>> Psychic phenomena is alleged to stem from the
>> brain.
>Who said that? Thats a materialists world view, and betrays your lack of
>knowledge of the subject matter at hand as I asserted from the beginning.
I though that some camps/groups did believe that psychic phenomena
arose from that "unused part of the brain". Since we are here to
learn (at least some of us) , please illuminate me a little bit.
>> Study of psychic phenomena is completely appropriate for science.
>Based on what that one line you thought was an argument? An argument must
>have a truth premise-if is inductive then the conclusion will logically
>follow if it has nothing new in the conclusion that is not contained
>within the premise and the form is not fallacious and valid. If it is
>inductive, there will be an added element to the conclusion that is not
>contained in the premise. Which argument did you present? How is a
>subject that bases its conclusions on physical laws can be appropriate
>for a subject that does not follow them?
Again, even if physical laws are not followed, the manifestations do.
You can be the most awesome telekinetic ever, put you still have to
pour water down into your glass. How many "phenomena" were thought to
be outside known physical laws, till newer laws/models were
constructed to fit all the data? What if there is another physical
force that can be harnessed to use telekinetically, psychic or
otherwise? If so, and it lays undiscovered, you can state that
paranormal phenomena does not follow CURRENT known physical laws.
>> If an object exists it exists in the material physical world...ever heard of
>> atoms, energy particles or the like?
>Yes, but obviously you haven't, because it is not known through the
>current standard model of subatomic particles and quantuum mechanics
>WHERE SOME OF THEM EXIST!
Touche... And let's not forget quantum mechanics in which a particle
goes from point A to point C without going through B! (Astral
projection at the atomic level : )? )
<SNIP>
>> Psychic proponants, however, seem to be as crooked as they come since they run from
>> scientific inquiry like cockroaches from the 'fridge light.
It is my own personnal experience, that some do and some do not, just
like in any other sphere of human interactions.
<SNIP>
>> Yeah, and my psychic representatives will fill you
>> in on what I think of that for a mere $1.98 a minute (first 30 seconds
>> are free). Remember, these are REAL psychics, not the fake ones
>> like everyone else is pushing.
There are hoaxes and scammers in the psychic world making money of
people, just like in a myriad of other economic endevours. In my own
experience (IMOE?) serious students/proponents of psychic phenomena
shun the fakers and have a desire to debunk them as strong as that of
SKEPTI-CUlts! It only makes sense, giving true, serious psychics a
bad reputation.
<SNIP>
>> Of course there are elements
>> within the scientific community that become rigid (science does not
>> since it is not a person).
>But you missed and snipped the point, science does the same as every
>other paradigm-including astrology- it looks for information to FURTHER
>ARTICULATE THE PARADIGM not break it down with anamoly, but it has other
>temptations as well like funding that astrology really is not threatened
>with losing.
Can you elaborate this point? Paradigms DO change in science and the
discoverers of such "anomalies" are usually hailed as "giants of
science" and usually win Nobel Prizes for their discoveries! Dr.
Thomas Chezch (Sp?) proposed that RNA could act as an enzyme (an
anomaly against the paradign that only proteins can be enzymes). His
discovery earned him the Nobel Prize for medicine. Dr. Stan Prusiner
proposed that an infectious agent could be made just of protein,
without any genetic material (again, a big anomaly against current
paradigms). He was the discoverer of "prions" the infective agent of
Mad Cow disease, and will win the Noble Prize soon (no psychic ability
here :) ).
I was a little dissapointed in reading your oblique reference to
"funding", maybe meaning that scientists have to "work within the
paradigm" for fear of losing their funding. Since I do not really
undertsand what you mean, I won't elaborate except to say that it is
an incorrect statement.
>> Until they're sleeping in your psychic love-bed you refuse to
>> credit them with intelligence or integrity.
>Until you learn the subjects about which you so boldly speak you will
>only succeeed in proving your ignorance and convince those who don't know
>both sides that hard headed egos and science go hand-in hand. I would
>like to see a successful experiment, but perhaps people can see that the
>prosecuting attorney is never going to fairly represent the defendent.
Ouch!! I will humbly submit that I do not posses a hard headed ego.
And I would LOVE to see a successful series of experiments, successful
not in that they will debunk or prove a side, but in that they will
generate meaningful information regarding the paranormal. Mr.
Wollmann, wouldn't you like knowing the "rules" behind astrology (or
more about them)? Don't you think that having that knowledge will make
you a better astrologic consultant? Or showing the statistical data
to prove to someone like Darklady that you have a higher "hit"
probability than mere randomness?
JAM
Richard Grant
Peter M wrote:
>In the future reffer to telepaths as telepathic mutants and not people, because we
> aren't telepathic in any way. Is that understood?
Yes.
Now at last we may be onto a more promising line of discussion.
Perhaps we *do* need to distinguish between:
(a) beings who are capable of the kind of perception that's being
called "telepathic" here, and
(b) those who are not.
A useful analogy might be drawn with the varying ability to
perceive color. The usual term for people whose field of visual
perception does not extend to certain frequencies commonly perceived
by others is "color-blind". People whose visual perception covers the
full "normal" spectrum -- even though this spectrum is itself quite
limited in scope -- are called, by default, "normal."
So perhaps we should refer to the telepathically impaired (i.e.,
those whom Peter M. is calling "we") as "psi-blind." This does not
mean that they are in any way inferior to the majority of people who
may be considered -- again by default -- "normal."
If necessary, legislation might be enacted to ensure that the
psi-blind are not penalized in any way on account of their congenital
inability to experience the full range of "normal" human experience.
They are, to descend to p.c. terminology, just _differently enabled_.
But it's okay. They're still people, just like everyone else.
Samuel McKee
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
<----------SNIP--------------->
> Ed:
>
> I agree that the points you make above, not snipped,
> are valid, for a dying, old, *ORTHODOX* science.
>
> I will state that "scientism," or orthodox "science" is
> inadequate to evaluate PSI or ASTROLOGY -- *PROPERLY*
So true. Orthodox science has major limitations when trying to test the validity of
paranormal claims. To whit: orthodox science makes the unreasonable demand that
hypotheses make specific, measurable claims that can be falsified by experiment if they
are wrong. A big part of that demand is the rule that after an experiment has falsified
a claim, the claimant cannot retroactively change the hypothesis to account for the
failure to observe the predicted results. Orthodox science also rejects anecdotal
("urban legend") evidence and demands that experimental results be repeatable by
independent researchers. In short, orthodox science is limited to the study of events
that happen in the real world.
Dan Pressnell
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> I agree that the points you make above, not snipped,
> are valid, for a dying, old, *ORTHODOX* science.
When this orthodox science is finally dead, can we at least keep the air
conditioners that the old orthodox science gave us? I like being cool
in the winter. I know I'm supposed to be in Oregon, but for some reason
it seems as hot as Texas right now!
Or will the air conditioners stop working, because they are based on the
outdated teachings of a fundamentalist, religious cult?
If the air conditioners quit working, then how am I going to keep cool?
Is there some type of reality structure that I could create that would
do the job? Like maybe just telling myself that it's really cool, which
will change reality to coolness here in Oregon?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
Hi, everybody.
I've looked for a FAQ or something like that, but I can't find it.
Can somebody tell me how the KOOK nomination goes?
Dan
Dan Pressnell
Richard Grant <tree...@midcoast.com> wrote:
> So perhaps we should refer to the telepathically impaired (i.e.,
>those whom Peter M. is calling "we") as "psi-blind." This does not
>mean that they are in any way inferior to the majority of people who
>may be considered -- again by default -- "normal."
> If necessary, legislation might be enacted to ensure that the
>psi-blind are not penalized in any way on account of their congenital
>inability to experience the full range of "normal" human experience.
>They are, to descend to p.c. terminology, just _differently enabled_.
>But it's okay. They're still people, just like everyone else.
What kind of legislation? Something like this? "No person shall be
denied employment as a psychic based on a lack of psychic powers."
Doesn't it already work that way? :)
Generally, legislation is enacted to prevent discrimination so that
there is no unfair advantage. Legislation to protect non-psi people
is just not needed. Those who "have" paranormal abilities can't do
anything that "we" can't do. They can't cure illness with psychic
powers. They can't manipulate matter with their minds (bending
spoons, etc.). They can't predict the future any better. They can't
remote-view any better than "we" can. If "we" wanted to, we could,
like Earl Gordon Curley, predict unsafe air travel in March, and claim
success when a plane crashes in August. If "we" wanted to, we could,
like Uri Geller, predict that a race-car driver will finish a race in
first place, and then claim success when he finishes the race in sixth
place. If we wanted to, we could, like Dr. Turi, say "watch for
surprises," and then claim success when there is a storm, a flood, an
earthquake, an accident, or a crime committed.
So "we" have all the abilities that psychics have. We can make
pot-shot predictions, and we can claim success at the drop of a hat.
The only difference is that "we" choose not to exercise that ability
(to make wild claims), where the psychics do exercise their ability to
do that.
So no such legislation is needed. Because there's no difference.
Those who claim to have paranormal powers don't have any advantage
over those who don't claim, and don't have, such powers. The only
difference is that one group claims to have powers it doesn't have.
That can lead to fraud, but we already have laws on that.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
Doug O'Neal
> A useful analogy might be drawn with the varying ability to
> perceive color. The usual term for people whose field of visual
> perception does not extend to certain frequencies commonly perceived
> by others is "color-blind". People whose visual perception covers the
> full "normal" spectrum -- even though this spectrum is itself quite
> limited in scope -- are called, by default, "normal."
> So perhaps we should refer to the telepathically impaired (i.e.,
> those whom Peter M. is calling "we") as "psi-blind." This does not
> mean that they are in any way inferior to the majority of people who
> may be considered -- again by default -- "normal."
> If necessary, legislation might be enacted to ensure that the
> psi-blind are not penalized in any way on account of their congenital
> inability to experience the full range of "normal" human experience.
> They are, to descend to p.c. terminology, just _differently enabled_.
> But it's okay. They're still people, just like everyone else.
As soon as you demonstrate that there is something to be "blind" to, I'll
consider your points. Until then, I refuse to consider myself deficient
in perceiving something that no one has ever demonstrated even EXISTS.
I would love it if some or all of us were telepathic. As soon as I see
evidence convincing to knowledgable but originally skeptical people, I'll
believe it.
> "Scientific people are always curious and I am going to be scientific.
> I keep saying to myself, 'What is it? What is it?' It must be
> something. It can't be nothing! I don't know its name so I call it
> Magic." (THE SECRET GARDEN) http://www.midcoast.com/~treehaus
In other words, whenever you don't understand something a priori, you
automatically assign it to the paranormal and stop questioning and turn off
your human capacity for reason.
Doug
twi...@hub.ofthe.net
Samuel McKee <samm...@glasscity.net> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
><----------SNIP--------------->
>> Ed:
>>
>> I agree that the points you make above, not snipped,
>> are valid, for a dying, old, *ORTHODOX* science.
>>
>> I will state that "scientism," or orthodox "science" is
>> inadequate to evaluate PSI or ASTROLOGY -- *PROPERLY*
>So true. Orthodox science has major limitations when trying to test the validity of
>paranormal claims. To whit: orthodox science makes the unreasonable demand that
>hypotheses make specific, measurable claims that can be falsified by experiment if they
>are wrong. A big part of that demand is the rule that after an experiment has falsified
>a claim, the claimant cannot retroactively change the hypothesis to account for the
>failure to observe the predicted results. Orthodox science also rejects anecdotal
>("urban legend") evidence and demands that experimental results be repeatable by
>independent researchers. In short, orthodox science is limited to the study of events
>that happen in the real world.
Sam, you're trying to take the fun out of all this! I haven't read
any of your posts before that I recall, will try to read any future
ones.
PS like your snip!
Paul Schlyter
In article <321BAC...@ns.vvm.com>,
Dan Pressnell <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
>> I agree that the points you make above, not snipped,
>> are valid, for a dying, old, *ORTHODOX* science.
>
> conditioners that the old orthodox science gave us?
> I like being cool in the winter.
> I know I'm supposed to be in Oregon, but for some reason it seems as
> hot as Texas right now!
> Or will the air conditioners stop working, because they are based on the
> outdated teachings of a fundamentalist, religious cult?
> If the air conditioners quit working, then how am I going to keep cool?
Svalbard or Greenland. Or even Antarctica.....
> Is there some type of reality structure that I could create that would
> do the job? Like maybe just telling myself that it's really cool, which
> will change reality to coolness here in Oregon?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@home.ausys.se
Charles Gregory
Dan Pressnell <dpre...@ns.vvm.com> wrote:
> I like being cool in the winter. (sic)
And you need an air conditioner to do this? In the winter? ROFL....
> If the air conditioners quit working, then how am I going to keep cool?
Shut your mouth. The resultant drop in hot air flow should make a definite
difference.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles Gregory
E-Mail: cha...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Home Page: [J]ump to "http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab801/Profile.html"
--
Charles Gregory
Just keep doing what you are doing. You'll get in for sure......
Joseph Romain
Richard Grant (tree...@midcoast.com) wrote: : > >> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF
: Extraordinary claims?
: How about the claim that lies at the center of the Skeptic
: world-view -- though it is not often stated explicitly -- that
: everything in the Universe can ultimately be explained in terms of the
: materialist, reductionist, atomistic paradigm that is generally taken
: by Skeptics to be synonymous with "science." Such a thing has *never*
: been proven.
: Skeptics believe, for instance, that the mysterious nature of
: consciousness will someday (perhaps quite soon) be settled by pinning
: the whole thing down to fluctuating states of human "wetware" -- the
: cognitive machine that is the human brain. But this is simply a
: matter of faith. Religious faith, if you will; only here the
: "religion" is a kind of anti-religion, a fervent -- almost
: fundamentalist -- belief in the infinite extensibility of
: reductionism.
...ahhh, finally, somebody else who recognizes scientific conservatism
with religious fundamentalism. I've never had enough religious
conviction to believe in either the god of the christians or the big bang...
Thanks.
"Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
the position of the North York Public Library."
Doug O'Neal
> ...ahhh, finally, somebody else who recognizes scientific conservatism
> with religious fundamentalism. I've never had enough religious
> conviction to believe in either the god of the christians or the big bang...
Well ... the big bang is not something that one "believes in" as one
"believes in" a religion or a deity. It is a theory, a working model for
how cosmologists think the universe might have began. It evidently has
some good points, because it nicely explains certain observations: the
expansion of the universe (from the recession of galaxies), the hot, dense
state of teh early universe (from the microwave background), and the
relative abundances of light elements (hydrogen, deuterium, helium,
lithium, etc.). If somebody comes out with a better idea that explains
these observations at least as well, then that will become the working
model. Science works that way; religion doesn't. Your analogy is totally
flawed.
Doug
TOM ELEVEN
In article <ONEAL.96A...@aloha.astro.psu.edu>, on...@astro.psu.edu
(Doug O'Neal) writes:
> Well ... the big bang is not something that one "believes in" as one
> "believes in" a religion or a deity. It is a theory, a working model
for
> how cosmologists think the universe might have began. It evidently has
> some good points, because it nicely explains certain observations: the
> expansion of the universe (from the recession of galaxies), the hot,
dense
> state of teh early universe (from the microwave background), and the
> relative abundances of light elements (hydrogen, deuterium, helium,
> lithium, etc.). If somebody comes out with a better idea that explains
> these observations at least as well, then that will become the working
> model. Science works that way; religion doesn't. Your analogy is
totally
> flawed.
We have to remember that SCIENCE IS A GAME. Its primary objective is
to invent " theories" that explain the most about our universe, while only
relying on "facts" gained by the results of experimentation and "controled
observation"
The current "Theory" that explains MOST of the experimental results
and observations, has the honor of being considered the "Truth" --Untill
another theory takes it's place. No theory has EVER been proposed that
explains EVERYTHING.
It is also obvious that the above comes nowhere NEAR describing
"absolute truth" Science is a formalized "guessing game" . We ALL know
that there are very real parts of the universe that are not YET explained
by contemporary Science. This does not mean that which is not explained
by a Scientific theory is not true, only that we are currently "not
allowed" to use it in the formulation of new theories according to the
"rules" of the "game"..
Unfortunately there are those of us who take the Game of Science TOO
seriously. They refuse to accept anything that is not explained by
current theories. they do not understand that Science is only an attempt
to fit a limited number of "facts" over an infinite universe and try to
cover the most points. What drives the true scientist is the obvious
presence of the uncovered areas. He is thus inspired to add on to the
"blanket of facts" and cover more and more. Those who ignore the parts
that the " blanket of facts" does not cover are fools. They will Never
contribute to any kind of knowledge, Scientific or otherwise. We call
such blind fools--"SKEPTICS".
tome...@aol.com Thomas M. Ray/\/\/\/\
Renae Ransdorf
Doug O'Neal (on...@astro.psu.edu) wrote:
: > A useful analogy might be drawn with the varying ability to
: > perceive color. The usual term for people whose field of visual
: > perception does not extend to certain frequencies commonly perceived
: > by others is "color-blind". People whose visual perception covers the
: > full "normal" spectrum -- even though this spectrum is itself quite
: > limited in scope -- are called, by default, "normal."
: > So perhaps we should refer to the telepathically impaired (i.e.,
: > those whom Peter M. is calling "we") as "psi-blind." This does not
: > mean that they are in any way inferior to the majority of people who
: > may be considered -- again by default -- "normal."
: > If necessary, legislation might be enacted to ensure that the
: > psi-blind are not penalized in any way on account of their congenital
: > inability to experience the full range of "normal" human experience.
: > They are, to descend to p.c. terminology, just _differently enabled_.
: > But it's okay. They're still people, just like everyone else.
: As soon as you demonstrate that there is something to be "blind" to, I'll
: consider your points. Until then, I refuse to consider myself deficient
: in perceiving something that no one has ever demonstrated even EXISTS.
Ever try to prove color to a blind man?
RLR
A
pete stapleton
on...@astro.psu.edu (Doug O'Neal) wrote:
>In article <321B46...@midcoast.com> Richard Grant <tree...@midcoast.com> writes:
>> A useful analogy might be drawn with the varying ability to
>> perceive color. The usual term for people whose field of visual
>> perception does not extend to certain frequencies commonly perceived
>> by others is "color-blind". People whose visual perception covers the
>> full "normal" spectrum -- even though this spectrum is itself quite
>> limited in scope -- are called, by default, "normal."
>> So perhaps we should refer to the telepathically impaired (i.e.,
>> those whom Peter M. is calling "we") as "psi-blind." This does not
>> mean that they are in any way inferior to the majority of people who
>> may be considered -- again by default -- "normal."
Pete Stapleton Comments: This is excellent follow up. As all will
note, I have been publishing for the past twenty years that the
"scientists" created by the credentialed community tend to be
Saturn/Neptune individuals. Their ability to "see" without the use of
their eyes is impaired.
There is an additional problem with this saturn/neptune affliction -
it doesn't allow one to believe anything unless it's peer group
agrees. These people are not only incapable of psychic reception
(cannot experienice it for themselves except under extraordiary
conditions) - they are compelled to dis agree with anything which
hasn't been approved by their group standards.
> As soon as you demonstrate that there is something to be "blind" to, I'll
> consider your points. Until then, I refuse to consider myself deficient
> in perceiving something that no one has ever demonstrated even EXISTS.
Pete Stapleton comments: why don't you do the work yourself. There
is an excellent source of data - the Mackey/Saunders collection which
gives birth certificate birth data of enough credentialed
"scientiests" to show this hightened Saturn/Neptune connection within
their natal charts to show this inability to "see" without eyesight .
Don't ask us to prove something that is immediately obvious to any
astrologer - do it yourself for once instead of just posting what
someone else said about what someone else said.
(good stuff snipped)
This Saturn/Neptune chilll translates to Saturn (the chiller)
inhibiting or impairing the psychic (Neptune) abiility we all possess
at birrth. For the skeptics, do some work for once and prove the
astrology wrong. Or, if you refuse to believe what you find wihtin
the birth data of the skeptics (elevated Saturn/Neptune contacts),
then do the birth charts of proven psychics (any tropical houseologist
who has been in business for over ten years or who has written a book
on astrology). Here you will find an absence of Saturn/Neptune
contacts.
NOTE: to be fair, one must also include the Siderealists who are
successful with Solar and Lunar returns in the list of proven
psychics. They are all strong Neptunes and there is no question that
Neptune if the source of Pshychic ability. For those who would
debate the point - please do the charts of as many tropical
astrologers as you can before you dis agree - strong Neptunes all over
the place. Also, remember Cyril Fagan was a succesful Tropical
Houseologists for twenty years before he re-discovered the Sidereal
Zodiac.
NOTE: The other place you find strong Neptunes (Juptier/Neptune) is
within the bishops who control organized religion.)
Regards, PEte Stapleton
pete stapleton
renae@saratoga (Renae Ransdorf) wrote:
>Doug O'Neal (on...@astro.psu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <321B46...@midcoast.com> Richard Grant <tree...@midcoast.com> writes:
(good stuff snipped)
>: As soon as you demonstrate that there is something to be "blind" to, I'll
>: consider your points. Until then, I refuse to consider myself deficient
>: in perceiving something that no one has ever demonstrated even EXISTS.
>Ever try to prove color to a blind man?
>RLR
>A
Pete Stapleton comments: well said. For what ever reasoni, I have
never been able to get an anti astro clone to cast a horoscope - to do
the work dis proving astrology using the tools of the astrologer. All
I have ever seen are claims a study proved a group of college students
couldn't identify their own astrological profiles - or that a group of
astrologers couldn't do this or that.
I have yet to see a study where a group of skeptics cast a series of
charts pertianing to whatever and then use the results to prove
astrology doesn't exist. Skeptics and anti - astro clones don't feel
such effort is necessary.
I did at one time try to bring about such a test when I was teaching a
beginngers astrology class at UCL:A. in the early 1970's. At the
beginning of each semester - each new astrology class, I would find
some second year astronomy students - who admitted they were there to
show just how silly it was to study astrology. And of course by the
end of the class - these very same doubters would have a much
different opinion of what astrology was all about - primarily because
they had been taught to cast a chart and how to read it.
I also went to the head of the college of astrolonomy of UCLA. I
wanted to know why he was so certain astrology was a magical belief.
He was gracious in the sense that he granted me the favor of saying he
would take the time to look over my material which proved astrology's
existence if I would leave it with his secretary. Yet, this was the
very same man who was responsible for sending the second year students
to harrass my class. He was absolutly certain astrology didn't work
and the idea of him doing any research in the areq didn't even cross
his mind. Thjis was the same man who eventually got caught
falsifiying data to prove the French statistician's failure to prove a
French Astrologer's stratistical proofs of the exitence of astrology
wrong was wrong.
It is interesting this man was a double Aquarian, and also a very
strong Saturn/Neptune - pcychically blind.
regards, Pete
L. Frederick File
In article <500vaq$2...@tweety.sna.com> pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton) writes:
.>renae@saratoga (Renae Ransdorf) wrote:
.>>Doug O'Neal (on...@astro.psu.edu) wrote:
.>>: In article <321B46...@midcoast.com> Richard Grant
.<tree...@midcoast.com>>writes:
.>(good stuff snipped)
.>>: As soon as you demonstrate that there is something to be "blind" to,
.I'll >>: consider your points. Until then, I refuse to consider myself
.deficient >>: in perceiving something that no one has ever demonstrated even
.EXISTS.
.
.>>Ever try to prove color to a blind man?
.>>RLR
.>>A
.>Pete Stapleton comments: well said. For what ever reasoni, I have
.>never been able to get an anti astro clone to cast a horoscope - to do
.>the work dis proving astrology using the tools of the astrologer. All
.>I have ever seen are claims a study proved a group of college students
.>couldn't identify their own astrological profiles - or that a group of
.>astrologers couldn't do this or that.
<text deletedd>
You miss the point as usual pobre pete. The closer one looks at astrology
objectively the more obvious it becomes that there is nothing to account
for.
All the supposed phenomena can be accounted for by standard psychology. Why
fashion postulates to account for that which is already clearly explained? To
make money from the credulous of course!
lff
Marilynn
pet...@c-zone.net (pete stapleton) wrote:
>(good stuff snipped)
>Regards, PEte Stapleton
Very interesting! I never looked at the Mackey/Saunders data
collection but I did start to collect charts on my own of "skeptics"
and I found that most of them had a difficult Saturn/Neptune aspect.
As far as charts of astrologers go, you have to consider that there
are different types of astrologers, the Neptunian, the Uranian, and
the Saturnian, but usually the first two are both strong in the chart
and Saturn less frequently. The Neptunian has a mystical or psychic
approach to astrology, not closely distinguishing boundaries between
hard and fast techniques of astrology and psychic impressions. The
Uranian is the technical astrologer, the innovative scientist if you
will who understands the 'rules' of the practice, but sets forth to
break them or develop new systems of astrology. The Saturnian will
follow the tradition of astrology and will only accept astrology
principles which are proven to their satisfaction through many case
studies. I don't think you can be a really good astrologer unless you
use all of the modes represented by these three planets. Jupiter
sometime gets thrown in the stew, then you have to contend with
religious views and assertions of authority.
Larry Caldwell
In article <321B46...@midcoast.com>,
Richard Grant <tree...@midcoast.com> wrote:
> Now at last we may be onto a more promising line of discussion.
> Perhaps we *do* need to distinguish between:
> (a) beings who are capable of the kind of perception that's being
> called "telepathic" here, and
> (b) those who are not.
Then you need to further differentiate your (a) into:
1) Those who are capable of considering other explanations for
their perceptions, and
2) Those who are not.
If you refuse to look, you're as good as blind. You should never be
too mentally lazy to examine your perceptions.
-- Larry
L. Frederick File
Marilynn wrote:
<text deleted>
> Very interesting! I never looked at the Mackey/Saunders data
> collection but I did start to collect charts on my own of "skeptics"
> and I found that most of them had a difficult Saturn/Neptune aspect.
How about skeptics like you and pete who are skeptical of the case
against astrology?
lff
pete stapleton
lff...@cais.com (L. Frederick File) wrote:
>You miss the point as usual pobre pete. The closer one looks at astrology
>objectively the more obvious it becomes that there is nothing to account
>for.
>All the supposed phenomena can be accounted for by standard psychology. Why
>fashion postulates to account for that which is already clearly explained? To
>make money from the credulous of course! >lff
===========================================================================
Pete Stapleton comments: Again personal attack from another
anti astro clone. It is unfortunate these clones don't
study science - it has already proven the existence of
astrological causation. If you read the papers , the direct
relationship between the electro-magnetic fields of our sun
and the human brain have been established for some time
(1970, if not sooner).
In any event - again Robert Roosen shows the truth of the
matter - and note - THIS POST FROM ROBERT ROOSEN TO IFF WAS
PUBLISHED
IN FEB, 1995. Which proves these anti astro clones like
iff only regurgitate from a prepared script - which leads to
the inquiry are their posts actaully a response from a human
or just the result of some computer programmed to react?
Here is the answer to what ever posted the above under IFF
from Robert Roosen written over 18 month ago :
Date: 03-20-95 (23:00) Number: 12925
From: roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen)Refer#: NONE
To: ALL Recvd: NO
Subj: Re: IS ASTROLOGY A SCIENCE ? Conf: AltAstrology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the question is, "Can astrology have a scientific
dimension?", then the answer is unquestionably yes.
If the question is, "Does astrology have a bunch of
mathematical rules and laws for predicting events?" then
the answer, to my knowledge, is no.
Of course, in terms of astrology as a means of
earning income,
the competition does not come from science. It comes from
psychology.
So, before going further, I ask:
IS PSYCHOLOGY A SCIENCE?
Charter Member, Chairman, ROSA (Registry of Sidereal
Astrologers, Placentia, CA
Founder, Chairman, SIDEREAL ASTROLOGICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Author of BEGINNING SIDEREAL ASTROLOGY
.
ASTROLOGICAL CONSULTANT UNDER UNITED NATIONS
GRANT (to develop astro birth control for use
in third world countries.)
First to use computer to write delineations of
computerized Sidereal horoscopes for the movie
THE ASTROLOGER.
Taught Astrology at UCLA Experimental College
for three years.
Producer of two half-hour television specials on Sidereal
Astrology and sixteen half-hour television astrology
serments for California Cable TV.
Author HAWAIIAN ASTROLOGY
ASTROLOGICAL CONSULTANT to the
HEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION (Beverly
Hills, CA)
Offices Honolulu, Beverly Hills,
San Francisco, Redding, Reno
twitch
pete stapleton <pet...@c-zone.net> wrote in article
<517a6k$c...@tweety.sna.com>...
>
===========================================================================
>
> Pete Stapleton comments: Again personal attack from another
> anti astro clone. It is unfortunate these clones don't
> study science -
I have been a scientist for 25 years. How long have you been one?
>it has already proven the existence of
> astrological causation. <snip>
Sorry, but you are incorrect. It has not proven the existence of
astrological causation. It hasn't even gotten any really good evidence.
Renae Ransdorf
twitch (twi...@hub.ofthe.net) wrote:
: I have been a scientist for 25 years. ?
What's your field? And how have you applied
it? Not a challenge, just curious.
RLR
twitch
Renae Ransdorf <renae@saratoga> wrote in article
<51d0dg$b...@lexington.compassnet.com>...
I'm a physicist. With a geophysics specialization. (The university didn't
offer geophysics degrees, so you were a physicist with a specialty.) I
have spent those years in gov't research as both a scientist and engineer.
(The gov't paid engineers for years about $3000/year more than scientists
doing the same work. I managed to work my position description around to
get the extra money. No different work, just better pay.)