Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Convincing Skeptics

"The Coyote (quote]Has anyone here ever...

1 ...thought they were being stared at and turned around and someone was staring at you?
2 ...thought about someone and the phone rang and they were calling?"

1. Yes I have but it pales into insignificance compared to the number of times I have turned around and no one was looking at me.

2. Yes but the number of times I have thought about people and the phone never rang is amazing!

Regards
Steve

I have to agree with Alex on this- while it can be very interesting and even enlightening to discuss things with people, it is seldom useful to try to convince a sceptic. Any model has limitations and possibilities- some folks tend to focus on possibilities, some on limitations. Having sceptics around can be very helpful to possibility thinkers like myself.

So I have taken to listening with extreme curiosity, and rather than taking a position of someone being right or wrong, unraveling the mystery of what the other believes, how and why etc. I stay happily curious, learn alot, and the other person is happy that someone is trying to understand them.

Sometimes they are even willing to entertain my ideas in kind, sometimes I adjust my thoughts as well, but that does not realy matter, because understanding does not have to mean agreement. When one tries to convince another, it s not nearly as much fun- at least for me.

vitaman

Dear Jeff,

Good to hear from you again. I hope you're enjoying your summer.

With regards to astrology, well, if you can use astrology to predict when
a rock will fall on my head, PLEASE let me know, so that I may step out of
the way!!

Regarding a 'Transcended Energy Being from the Upper Cycle of "Whatever",'
well, if I were so privileged as to have him visit my lab, I wouldn't be
asking him/her to jump through hoops and drinking water or anything else a
human three-year-old could do. I'm sure we could figure out something
much more enlightened to pass the time.

Regarding "Iron Crotch Gung Fu," to answer your direct question whether I
consider this to be paranormal, no, I do not. It is already classified
under sports science as an example of an "extreme human feats." There are
many such examples, and they are active areas of scientific investigation.

Since you raise martial arts (one of my favorite past-times, by the way),
I was wondering if you are familiar with Juko-Kai, created by Soke Rod
Sacharnoski ( http://www.jukokai.com/ ) His brand of martial arts toughens
up the mind and body to such an extent that he and his students are able
to shrug off direct full-force strikes to sensitive body parts, such as
the neck, head, and groin. His group is quite famous for their incredible
demonstrations, sometimes involving professional athletes (like football
players) who are invited to "give it their best shot" in delivering
strikes which would send most people to the emergency room. Of course,
they are only allowed to use their bare hands/elbows/feet to strike, so
there's a limit to a Juko-Kai practitioner's defensive ability. For
example, no one can yet shrug off getting hit in the head by a baseball
bat! Nevertheless, it's quite impressive, and anyone can learn Juko-Kai
with time and discipline. Nothing paranormal here. Just good
old-fashioned blood, sweat, and tears. (BTW ... there's some controversy
regarding Sacharnoski's credentials. See: http://www.e-budokai.com/jukokai/index.htm
But his technique is proof-positively genuine.)

Regarding whether I can "prove reality," well, there certainly is an
"objective reality" which is very easily proved every day, and which
generations of people have devoted and are devoting their lives to trying
to understand on an objective, rational basis. Their work is described
in good science textbooks and journals. Everything in them, you can
independently "prove" for yourself. For example, the objective reality of
gravity is quite easily demonstrated: the next time your feet go "up"
instead of "down" when you get out of bed in the morning, please let us
know (hopefully you'll be able to get to your computer ok).

We have to base our discussion on some rational basis in order for it to
be meaningful. If you are still having trouble with the foundational
question of whether there is a reality at all, you'll have to seek the
help of a philosopher or a psychologist. I am neither, sorry.

Best,

HF

Dear vitaman,

Echoing Alex, you said, "it is seldom useful to try to convince a
sceptic."

Convince a skeptic ... of what, exactly?

There are certain things which are inherently unprovable, such as matters
of faith, belief, conviction, and even political persuasion. In these
matters, the universal human trait of "confirmational bias" takes over,
for better or worse. (See Shermer's article above.)

But there are other things which are definitely objectively provable or
falsifiable, and this is where the scientific method shines.

For example, let's say Guru X begins to teach something, like, "Meditation
is a way to inner peace and joy, and if you follow my teachings on
meditation, you will enjoy these things." And you try it, and it works
for you ... wonderful! It would be inappropriate for me, a "skeptic," to
doubt your claim that following Guru X has enhanced your life in this way,
even if I tried the method myself and it didn't work for me. All I can
say is, well, "It didn't work for me," but I can't say "It doesn't work at
all," because I have to acknowledge that, assuming you're being honest, it
did work for you. In this example, if I against all reason remained an
adamant unbeliever, it makes no sense to try to convince me of your
position, and like you rightfully said, it would not be useful anyway.
At best, we can perform more detailed studies to understand why it works
for some people and not for others. At worst, we say, "To each his own,"
and hopefully remain friends.

But, now let's say Guru X adds a new teaching, like, "If you follow my
teachings, you will gain super-human abilities, such as the ability to
levitate, bend metal with your thoughts, move objects without touching
them, control the weather, walk on water, cure diseases, see and walk
through walls, read people's minds, project your thoughts into others'
minds, teleport, de-materialize and materialize objects at will, be
impervious to bullets and knives, never die, and a host of other
miraculous abilities." Well, now, these are quite extraordinary claims,
and here, I would HOPE that skepticism is REQUIRED. And, let's say you
follow Guru X's teachings, and you claim to me that you are able to
manifest some of these extraordinary abilities. So, then I ask you (with
great curiosity and interest) to demonstrate them for me. But you say,
"Oh, it's seldom useful to try to convince a skeptic," and walk away.

What am I suppose to think now? What you profess should be easily
demonstrable to even the most skeptical person's satisfaction, if your
claims are genuine. To take on faith that which can be easily settled with
objective evidence is not "open-mindedness," it is "no-mindedness." Either
stop making those claims, or demonstrate them openly for all to
appreciate. No need to build a slippery slope leading up to a tower of
mystery, and then condemn rational people for voluntarily blinding
themselves to "truth," when in fact, your tower is one of fallacy. No one
is served well by this, least of all those who diligently seek what is
good and true.

(I use the pronoun "you" in a general sense, not you personally, vitaman,
so please don't take any offense at my statements.)

Best,

HF

Aloha HF;

Yes I am somewhat familiar with Soke Rod Sacharnoski and technics of absorbing blows to the body. Many Buddhist Monks also demonstate something similiar. It is not something I'm interested in, but it is there. Not nearly as entertaining as the Iron Crotch demonstration. Myself I have always enjoyed the sword. Of late I have been learning Tai Chi Sword Form and find it alot of fun and energizing.

I was hoping you might prove something instead of qouting papers and reports
and web pages that other people have written or spoken. Do you actually believe all this overload of information and just pass it on as proof?

My personal experience says that when people get involved trying to communicate scientific research or technology and think they have something, for anyone else it is like cracking a code to make it work. Some people can do the work and make it happen, most can't.

You rattle off all these references but have demonstrated nothing to me other than your librarian skills.

You want some earth shaking research to conduct, I'll wager there is something on your desk, staring you in the face that would do this very thing but is not seen.

Don't get me wrong HF, I'm not criticizing you but if you truely want to find this gifted individual to research you will have to define your target a little better than hoping he/she falls out of the sky. Do you want to know how they achieve what they do or do you want to put them in the circus?

Everything that can easily be explained away, is it really that easy to do?
The truth might set you free but it doesn't get the work done.

Even if you have a burning vision in your mind of what you want, it takes work to get it into your hands.

I see magic all the time but at it's root it is all very mechanical. Today I saw a music video of Inxs and their new singer. Just a mess of guys with instruments and a mics. When the music started I thought it was magic.

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

OK, you really got me with the reality gravity thing. I give up.

JD

On the other hand, and this might not be the case at all in this instance, but some people like to shut down a discussion using large data dumps to overwhelm everyone else. I've seen it done on a lot of other boards, and frankly, it's been something of a wet blanket on these discussions here.

I mean no offense here, but like Jeffdengr, I'd like to hear what these members HERE have to say about things, if they've tried it, how it worked for them--with only the occasional outside link.

Apologies if anyone is offended.

Jeanne

Dear Jeff and Jeanne,

Regarding the reference links, I didn't know this practice was frowned
upon, so sorry. I started doing this as a service to readers to encourage
people to explore and think for themselves. When I read stuff on forums,
I find that they are often loaded with misinformation, and unless a reader
happens to know better, they may leave with the impression that they've
read something true. I'm especially concerned about younger people who
are more impressionable. So, my references are meant only as a way to
back-up what I present, so that a reader doesn't have to take my word for
it but check it out conveniently for herself. It actually takes me a bit
of time to find the appropriate links myself, so, okay, if no one
appreciates them, I'll be happy to stop doing it. Thanks for the heads-up
regarding this.

Jeff - Your statements in your last post came across as somewhat cryptic,
and I'm a bit confused how to respond. If I haven't made my motives clear
in the past dozens of postings, I don't know what else will.

Regarding your definition of "magic" as a quality arising from the
"sum-is-more-than-its-parts," this concept in the scientific study of
complex systems is called "emergence" and I've commented on it before
(along with an appropriate link, which I'll forgo posting again). I don't
think, though, this is what most people mean when they use the word
"magic." If everything is "magical" and everything is a "miracle," well,
that's a very lovely and romantic way to view reality, but using these
words in this way completely dilutes their intended meaning.

So, the real issue appears to be what it is you are trying to convince
skeptics about in the first place, as I pointed out in my last response to
vita-man above. I will readily agree that life is "magical" in a romantic
sense, but I would require objective confirmation to accept that the
natural order includes real "magic," that is, the art of influencing
events and physical phenomenon through supernatural, mystical, or
paranormal means.

You see, the burden of proof is not on the skeptic, but on the magician.
A real magician could and would happily convince the most hardened skeptic
beyond a shadow of any doubt her magic is real. And a good skeptic will
always be able to expose a false magician as merely an illusionist at best or
a con artist at worst.

Belief is not the prerequisite for real magic to occur ... it is the
natural result when real magic has occurred.

Best,

HF

Hi HF;

To cover a few steps on this discussion. To qoute something I heard from Bill Harris that might fit here "The map is not the territory". When I was a younger lad I liked to follow the big name body builders like Arnold. One of his competitors was Frank Zane. I liked Frank and he was to write a book on his life. So when it came out I went to consume every word. To my complete disappointment Frank would make a statement and then qoute all of the professional & scientific references to his statement-like a legal brief of someone trying to cover their butt.

Anyway there are lots of maps out there but it would be more interesting to hear if someone went exploring with one and got their shoes dirty, then told us all about it.

I just wanted to hear from Frank not all this other reference stuff. Is there a person in all of this? There is enough technical jargon for me at work.

Regarding Magic. I like to look at magic as a romantic. Like the dance of life, the music that fills the soul. To me this is magical stuff.

The Magic you speak of, I have had the honor to have met 2 such people that stripped my reality and made me think in different terms. They scared the living bejeezus out of me somedays and still showed that love ruled.

I disagree that the burden of proof is on the Magician. It is they that control whether or not they demonstrate their power. That old saying of "when the student is ready the teacher will appear". Why would a true Yogi or the like want to show off? If you sincerely wanted to learn, most would certainly be able to detect this and willingly teach you.

It also takes alot of energy to do such things so why demonstrate it and waste the time and energy when it could be used for more constructive things?

Maybe I just wanted to hear some real life experience from a real person that tried something to see if it would deliver as promised. If they fell on their face did they try to figure it out and make it work? Are they a survivor personality?

What can I learn from this person's experience? The arm chair quarterbacks can sit there and throw stones but let's put them on the field and see what happens. You have to think very differently then.

All the best to you and thanks for hearing me out.

JD

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your heartfelt post. I can appreciate where you're coming
from, and believe me, I would also love to hear about real, honest, true
life stories of people who have succeeded in mastering
paranormal/supernatural abilities. I suppose that is why TheCoyote began
this thread in the first place. Interestingly, though, all of the
discussion has been centered on attacking skeptics and science (which
prompts me to defend it), and no one has yet contributed a first-person
success story. So, I too am patiently waiting.

Well, if you'll allow a personal story of failure, I can offer a personal
account, which is completely true. When I was younger, I was very
attracted to the whole paranormal/supernatural scene, especially inspired
by the likes of Uri Geller. He said anyone could learn to bend spoons
with their minds, and it appeared that children from all over the world were
able to do it with him on his TV specials. So, I followed all his
instructions with the complete trust and full belief of a child that I
could do it, too. I even went to bed each night holding a spoon or fork,
falling asleep with the full intention that by morning, the metal would
melt and bend. I read all those wonderful stories of "PK parties" and saw
all those cool pictures of spoons and forks bent into all sorts of wild
shapes. So, I was confident I could do it too, since everyone else seemed
to be able to.

But of course, since I prefaced this account as a "failure," you already
know that I did not succeed in my goal. The thought occurred to me:
maybe I need to spend years and years developing this power. But then I
realized something ... gee ... if I want to bend a spoon, well, I can just
BEND it (with my muscles!) Why spend years and years developing a power
to do something I can easily do in a few seconds with my bare hands or
some simple tools?

And I realized this applied to all those fanciful powers which I wish I
possessed:

Paranormal power .................... Practical solution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psychokinesis ........................ Reach out and move it
Walking through walls .............. Use the door
Clairvoyance ........................... Ask, "What's on your mind?"
Telepathy ............................... Say, "Here's what I think."
Levitation ................................ Board an aircraft
Walking on water ..................... Board a boat
Teleportation ........................... Walk, ride, drive
Controlling the weather ............. Carry an umbrella
Healing disease ....................... Practice a healthy lifestyle
Omniscience ........................... Read, learn, do my homework
Precognition ............................ Live a day at a time
Invisibility ................................ Keep quiet
Shapeshifting ........................... Have a varied, colorful wardrobe

... etc. ... etc. ...

I'm not ruling out the possibility that someone can manifest the abilities
on the left-hand-side (which as you say may take a lifetime to master and
an extraordinary amount of energy to perform), but I just find them quite
meaningless if there's a simple, ready solution on the right-hand-side
(which anyone can do with ease).

Another great "power" someone can develop is an objective, rational mind.
It's astonishing that so many people would rather trust the promises of a
magical, mystical figure than learn to trust their own critical voice.

Anyway, that's my own story, for what it's worth. If gurus like Uri
Geller are genuine (despite all the debunking evidence against him which
has arisen over the years), then I'm sure he can sleep well at night, and
I hope his dream of a world where the "paranormal" becomes "normal" comes
true. It simply didn't in my case, and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
(More importantly, I have nothing to gain by pretending something that is
actually false is true.) Perhaps the world is not ready yet for such a
reality-shift, but when it is, believe me, the revolution will be led by
the previous skeptics, because we will be able to prove beyond a doubt
that it is genuine.

Best,

HF

RE: burden of proof

Dear Jeff,

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the extraordinary claim,
not the skeptic.

Let's use something much more mundane as an example, like, money:

If an investment guru made the extraordinary claim that if I invest
$10,000 with her, she would give me 100% return on investment and return
$20,000 to me in one year. Of course I would be skeptical and request
"proof."

Now, the spirit of your defense sounds like, "Oh, she's the investment
guru, and it's completely up to her to demonstrate her investment success
at her will. After all, the power to produce a 100% return on investment
requires much energy and time, and when the student is ready, the teacher
appears ... "

Okaaay ....

The problem is, even if I accept your rationalization on her behalf, the
best I can do is agree that she might possess her awesome investing powers
and may be able to double her own money every year. But the fact is, I'm
not going to invest one red cent with her unless she provides some
concrete proof her system works. I as the skeptic am not obligated
whatsoever to prove her claim. The burden of proof is entirely upon her.

Likewise, if Guru X claims she has some paranormal power, but won't (or
can't) objectively demonstrate it to me, well, okay, fine, she can
rationalize her refusal/inability to demonstrate it all she wants
(negative energy due to skeptics, planets are misaligned, having a bad hair
day, the student is not ready, etc, etc.) But I won't give her my belief
(just as I won't give my money to the investment guru) without proof.
The burden of proof is entirely on the one making the extraordinary claim.

Now, if it's difficult enough to believe without proof that someone can
invest $10,000 into $20,000 (perfectly possible in objective reality,
after all), then why should it be easier to believe someone can, say,
dematerialize and/or materialize a $1 dollar bill (completely outside the
realm of objective reality) without an objective demonstration?

I would most certainly welcome a genuine paranormal demonstration, just as
I would welcome a legitimate investment opportunity offering a 100% return
on investment. Is it too much to ask for proof before giving my belief
(which, after all, is infinitely more valuable than $10,000!)?

Best,

HF