The Scole Experiments

[Magical Realist]

If it's not reliable and it was collected with no standards consistent with science, then it's useless. Perhaps it's motivation for further investigation, but that's it.

How is new film sealed in its package, marked, and locked in a box not consistent with scientific controls? Ofcourse it is. You just want to dismiss it because it IS real evidence. And that refutes your claim that there is no evidence for the paranormal.

 

[Kittamaru]

And the funny (amusing) thing is that MR does not even appear bright enough to realize that NO ONE here agrees with his side of the the story. He's all alone in believing all of this foolishness. (huge grin)

Read Only, there's no need to go and insult him, alright?

"Can be" doesn't equal "was". It "could be" that JFK was never assassinated and the film of it was totally faked. The eyewitnesses? Anecdotal accounts that don't count as scientific evidence. See? Anything can be dismissed as faked.

Except for the key difference - this is a single instance of evidence... and if you notice, even the JFK assassination is still theorized about at times. Technically speaking, it is impossible to "prove" anything 100%... what we can do is prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". So far, the limited evidence that has been presented hasn't done that yet.

 

[Magical Realist]

Read Only, there's no need to go and insult him, alright?



Except for the key difference - this is a single instance of evidence... and if you notice, even the JFK assassination is still theorized about at times. Technically speaking, it is impossible to "prove" anything 100%... what we can do is prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". So far, the limited evidence that has been presented hasn't done that yet.

You say nothing can proven 100% and then complain these experiments don't prove beyond all reasonable doubt? That seems contradictory to me. You're requiring a level of proof that can never be attained. Tell me, beyond what was provided, what for YOU would provide adequate proof for the paranormal? And fyi, this was NOT a single instance but very many instances of received images on film locked in boxes. Here's the details of how it happened and the careful protocol that was observed:

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/s_files_13.htm

 

[Kittamaru]

You say nothing can proven 100% and then complain these experiments don't prove beyond all reasonable doubt? That seems contradictory to me. You're requiring a level of proof that can never be attained. Tell me, beyond what was provided, what for YOU would provide adequate proof for the paranormal? And fyi, this was NOT a single instance but very many instances of received images on film locked in boxes. Here's the details of how it happened and the careful protocol that was observed:

http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/s_files_13.htm

Except who locked the boxes? Who put the film there? When were all these instances collected, and what was used as a "baseline"comparison.

I'm not saying the evidence isn't possibly good... I'm saying there isn't enough of it.

TO be fair, I have had my own encounters with what people would say is "paranormal"... I don't consider it paranormal as much as perhaps forgotten or even ignored... I'm just saying I would like more evidence, and more scrutiny.

 

[Read-Only]

Read Only, there's no need to go and insult him, alright?

No insult intended and none given - just reporting a fact that is HERE for all to see. Not a single participant in this thread agrees with him, no one has come to his defense. It's not insulting to point out what everyone can clearly see for themselves. And the rest of my point is that he appears unable to see that.

If you take any group of ten people, one saying "yea" and nine saying "nay", who would you accept as most likely being right?????

 

[Magical Realist]

To the claim that only unintelligent or young people believe in the paranormal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mti3oWINgY0

I have personally been studying this phenomenon for around 10 years now, coinciding with the surge of paranormal investigation groups around the world. It would be insane to insist that all the evidence produced by these groups so far is faked. Really? So believers in the paranormal walk around in abandoned buildings all night with expensive equipment only to fake the evidence for the paranormal? That treads closely to conspiracy theory, something I'm not so inclined to embrace. I support the scientific approach, which is exactly what these investigation groups are using (infrared cameras, motion detectors, laser grids, digitally analyzed voice recordings, temperature sensors, vibration detectors, heat sensitive cameras, etc.) Anyone who would examine all the evidence that has turned up so far will not deny that there is evidence. Ofcourse there is. And more and more evidence accumulates every year. Look, do you think I don't know how foolish it looks for a science fan to admit the reality of the paranormal? Do you think I like admitting that our reality isn't cut and dried and only physical in nature? I don't. But I don't care what people think. I simply go by the evidence. Which is the objective scientific approach in all cases.

Here's some more compelling evidence:

http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/

 

[Magical Realist]

No insult intended and none given - just reporting a fact that is HERE for all to see. Not a single participant in this thread agrees with him, no one has come to his defense. It's not insulting to point out what everyone can clearly see for themselves. And the rest of my point is that he appears unable to see that.

If you take any group of ten people, one saying "yea" and nine saying "nay", who would you accept as most likely being right?????

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1.Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2.Therefore X is true.

"The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question."--http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

 

[Read-Only]

Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1.Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2.Therefore X is true.

"The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.

This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an Appeal to Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the action in question."--http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

None of that applies in this case since here we have ONLY a LONE individual standing alone. Period.

 

[Magical Realist]

Except who locked the boxes? Who put the film there? When were all these instances collected, and what was used as a "baseline"comparison..

The investigators themselves. Who else could vouch for the phenomena and the control protocol except those involved in the experiment?

 

[Magical Realist]

None of that applies in this case since here we have ONLY a LONE individual standing alone. Period.

Wow..so if you go stand in a full church and claim there's no God, you MUST be wrong since you're the only one there who believes that? That's ridiculous. Your fallacy has been exposed. Give up trying to use it.

 

[Read-Only]

Wow..so if you go stand in a full church and claim there's no God, you MUST be wrong since you're the only one who believes that? That's ridiculous. Your fallacy has been exposed. Give up trying to use it.

You've exposed nothing since we're talking about 'something' you claim there is evidence for and which does NOT exist in the poor example you tried to use. Care to try again?

 

[Magical Realist]

You've exposed nothing since we're talking about 'something' you claim there is evidence for and which does NOT exist in the poor example you tried to use. Care to try again?

Whether the belief is really true or not is irrelevant. A theist at an atheist conference would not be wrong just because he is the only one there who believes in God. There is absolutely no relationship between a belief's truth or falsity and the majority belief of those who happen to surround you. It's irrelevant. Like Copernicus, and Galileo. You remember those guys don't you?

 

[quantum_wave]

MR, I sympathize with you. You brought up a topic that interests you, openned it to discussion, in the Fringe sub-forum which is intend for that topic, and could not get the slightest acknowledgement that thinly vailed insults could be taken as insults. I'm 70, and I do think that implying that youthful posters are gullible is out of line. If I thought that, I would say that, "I don't know how old you are, but when I was young, I think I was a little gullible", and leave it at that.

You are not handlng it as I would, which is to ignore those members. Also, nothing wrong with reporting those posts, futile as it is in this environment, but to say you have reported the post doesn't seem to be completely faultless.

 

[Magical Realist]

MR, I sympathize with you. You brought up a topic that interests you, openned it to discussion, in the Fringe sub-forum which is intend for that topic, and could not get the slightest acknowledgement that thinly vailed insults could be taken as insults. I'm 70, and I do think that implying that youthful posters are gullible is out of line. If I thought that, I would say that, "I don't know how old you are, but when I was young, I think I was a little gullible", and leave it at that.

You are not handlng it as I would, which is to ignore those members. Also, nothing wrong with reporting those posts, futile as it is in this environment, but to say you have reported the post doesn't seem to be completely faultless.

Thanks. Apparently there is selective enforcement of the "no insult" rule here. Only skeptics get to belittle and flame, but woe unto you if you flame back. I learned that the hard way when I posted fairy pics half in fun in this subforum. I was violently castigated thruout the whole thread for being a child. Then when I returned the "compliment", bam!--a month long ban which was later reduced to 2 weeks. I guess it all depends if the mods agree with what you are posting. Or if their roommate has paid his share of the rent?

 

[Kittamaru]

*shrugs* Perhaps if you didn't have a sordid history of insulting others you wouldn't have found yourself in that predicament... but heaven forbid someone criticize your actions...

 

[Magical Realist]

*shrugs* Perhaps if you didn't have a sordid history of insulting others you wouldn't have found yourself in that predicament... but heaven forbid someone criticize your actions...

An infraction is issued with no relevance to posting history. If it is then it is unjust. You can't say insulting is more infractionable for me just because I have a history of it. Either insulting is equally infractionable for all, or it isn't infractionable at all. Like calling someone..oh I don't know..a jackass?

 

[Balerion]

Right. The whole story of the Scole experiments was made up because it's on TV and Youtube. Never even happened. LOL!

See, this kind of dishonesty is ridiculous. You know full well thats not what I said. What I said is that you have no evidence.

 

[Kittamaru]

An infraction is issued with no relevance to posting history. If it is then it is unjust. You can't say insulting is more infractionable for me just because I have a history of it. Either insulting is equally infractionable for all, or it isn't infractionable at all. Like calling someone..oh I don't know..a jackass?

Odd... since that's not how it works in the criminal justice system in virtually any country I'm aware of... even for something as menial as a speeding ticket; if it is a first offense, and you have a clean record, you are far more likely to get a warning, while if you have a few warnings you are almost certain to get a ticket, and if you have had several tickets and a number of points, you are liable to have your license revoked.

And I'll say it again, since you apparently missed the point the first time: people wouldn't have a desire to call you a jackass if you didn't act like one (stubborn, won't listen to reason, overly opinionated, etc)

 

[spidergoat]

No..special precautions were made to rule out fraud. All the people involved were men/women of science and vouched for that. These experiments were performed over 5 years in many locations all over Europe and America. No fraud or trickery has ever been proven, though ofcourse that is the standard allegation of skeptics who weren't even present. Hey, let's believe THEM! They know everything. lol!

That's not good enough, that doesn't constitute reliable testing. Were these published in a peer reviewed journal?

(cue screed against establishment science)

 

[Magical Realist]

Odd... since that's not how it works in the criminal justice system in virtually any country I'm aware of... even for something as menial as a speeding ticket; if it is a first offense, and you have a clean record, you are far more likely to get a warning, while if you have a few warnings you are almost certain to get a ticket, and if you have had several tickets and a number of points, you are liable to have your license revoked.

No..speeding is equally wrong for those with or without records. Whether you get a warning or not relies on other things like courtesy or your reason for speeding.

And I'll say it again, since you apparently missed the point the first time: people wouldn't have a desire to call you a jackass if you didn't act like one (stubborn, won't listen to reason, overly opinionated, etc)

I see. So insulting is ok for YOU when you personally think the person deserves it. That's a mighty fickle way of abiding by the forum rules. I guess being a moderator has its perks eh?