Night of Mediumship & Clairvoyance

[Robin Orton]

Nice slide there from 'discourage' to 'ban'.

Only because I could find nothing on the link to suggest that the Nigerian government was in fact proposing to ban (as opposed to discourage) anything. The implication of some of the comments on this thread on the other hand seemed to me to be that someone should ban claims to be able to make contact with the dead.

Finding effective, general ways to discourage fellow citizens' non-evidence based claims would seem the more pressing civic duty.

How about a Ministry of Truth?

[Tim Lund]

Nice slide there from 'discourage' to 'ban'.

Only because I could find nothing on the link to suggest that the Nigerian government was in fact proposing to ban (as opposed to discourage) anything. The implication of some of the comments on this thread on the other hand seemed to me to be that someone should ban claims to be able to make contact with the dead.

Finding effective, general ways to discourage fellow citizens' non-evidence based claims would seem the more pressing civic duty.

How about a Ministry of Truth?

I explicitly excluded use of the coercive power of government from this part of our civic duty.

[Robin Orton]

A Ministry of Truth wouldn't need to be coercive. It would merely convince us of the error of our ways, by patiently and repeatedly giving us knock-down rational arguments against superstition, priestcraft and all associated flummery. Perhaps you might get a job as a consultant, Tim - you'd be great!

[mosy]

Logically an ebola faith healer can show evidence, i.e. if a person lives on, which could be coincidental if fatality statistics are less than 100%. It is similar to mediums' dilemma however in that coincidence cannot be proven either to discount their claims, nor can proof be given that faith healing itself was not the cause of the recovery, even if one discounts the notion that positive thinking alone can help a body's will to fight. So either way it's just one belief vs another (disbelief).

It's surely fair to say that "customers" (paying or otherwise) actively seek out healers and mediums of their own volition, since it's not like intimidating pressure selling by a door-to-door salesman. People will always believe what they want to, as belief in various religions shows and no amount of legislation will change that.

In effect, a ban is already in place in the EU, or risk being sued for profiting from false pretences, unless described as entertainment.

We are supposed to live in a country (or EU) which values free speech and the right to spend our money as we wish, notwithstanding obligatory taxes. Erosion of those rights is a slippery slope surely.

[Tim Lund]

A Ministry of Truth wouldn't need to be coercive. It would merely convince us of the error of our ways, by patiently and repeatedly giving us knock-down rational arguments against superstition, priestcraft and all associated flummery. Perhaps you might get a job as a consultant, Tim - you'd be great!

Thanks, but I'd decline the honour.

In any case, I've never heard of a Ministry of Anything which did not depend on the coercive power of the state to collect the money to pay its staff. and other costs.

Just reading Geoffrey Robertson's "The Tyrrannicide Brief". Happy to lend it to you when I've finished it.

[hairybuddha]

Logically an ebola faith healer can show evidence, i.e. if a person lives on, which could be coincidental if fatality statistics are less than 100%

An Ebola faith healer (whatever that is) can show what he claims is evidence. But his evidence can be easily discredited.

We are supposed to live in a country (or EU) which values free speech and the right to spend our money as we wish, notwithstanding obligatory taxes. Erosion of those rights is a slippery slope surely.

We also love in a society that seeks to protect the vulnerable and the needy. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. Nor are we free to spend our money as we wish.

[mosy]

An Ebola faith healer (whatever that is) can show what he claims is evidence. But his evidence can be easily discredited.

By words yes, but only of disbelief ("I don't believe this and you shouldn't either") rather than scientific proof. Unless I'm missing how it can be scientifically proved or disproved; observed, empirical statistical projections of likelihood aren't proof.

We also love in a society that seeks to protect the vulnerable and the needy. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. [Agreed] Nor are we free to spend our money as we wish [<-Query this].

[my bold]
I'm missing your point - clearly after obligatory taxes we have to pay for water, food and shelter as well, but no-one can tell me not to buy a diamond bracelet, flash car or a bottle of nail varnish or pint of beer. Please explain.

Regarding Ministry of Truth and propaganda, it's still a matter of believing or not, or conversely just wanting to be in with the in crowd irrespective, even assuming no threat of punishment if one doesn't follow the herd.

[Tim Lund]

Regarding Ministry of Truth and propaganda, it's still a matter of believing or not, or conversely just wanting to be in with the in crowd irrespective, even assuming no threat of punishment if one doesn't follow the herd.

I think you're living in a world of political reality there, Mosy

There is, however, a parallel universe, where evidence is weighed by impartial standards, and the person who can show glaring inconsistencies in the claims of his or her opponents can expect to win the argument. It is the world, for the most part, of scientists, legal and other professions, and a surprising number of ordinary people, including many religious people.

[hairybuddha]

By words yes, but only of disbelief ("I don't believe this and you shouldn't either") rather than scientific proof. Unless I'm missing how it can be scientifically proved or disproved; observed, empirical statistical projections of likelihood aren't proof.

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that rehydration therapy and IV fluids help patients fight off Ebola. There is no such evidence that faith healing is similarly effective. Therefore your assertion can be disproved.

[mosy]

Edit to add replying to Tim Lund: Of course, but if someone is right some of the time (quantification of "some" is irrelevant), the element of doubt (i.e. maybe, just maybe) will still mean that believers will continue to believe. You (or anyone) might consider evidence to be overwhelming in majority terms, but in truth we just don't know. Unless someone comes back from the dead and tells us of the hereafter. Since no-one has yet, except Jesus' purported resurrection being one of several billion peeps who've lived and died in the last 2000 years, the batting average is not good that anyone else will any time soon. Besides, how do we know he wasn't given absynth or some other pulse-stopping heart-slowing drug so his followers could smuggle him away after being entombed (he wasn't buried six feet under)? Answer: We don't.

Your argument about "winning" reminds me of TV debates where viewers are asked to press a button if they've changed their minds due to it. Staunch believers won't have whatever is said.

[mosy]

By words yes, but only of disbelief ("I don't believe this and you shouldn't either") rather than scientific proof. Unless I'm missing how it can be scientifically proved or disproved; observed, empirical statistical projections of likelihood aren't proof.

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that rehydration therapy and IV fluids help patients fight off Ebola. There is no such evidence that faith healing is similarly effective. Therefore your assertion can be disproved.

My assertion was that empirical evidence isn't scientific proof, no more no less. But nor is it dis-proof(sp?) that faith healing has or might have worked in some cases. As said, mind over matter and will to live, or possibly some faith healers have a magnetism, like copper bracelets are used for rheumatism - or whatever. One chap shown on TV could place lots of spoons vertically on his person that stayed put. Unless he had a gullet-full of a chain of magnets it's hard to know how he could do that.

I'll happily accept (I already have) that "empirical observations suggest that..." just not that they're scientific proof.

[mosy]

Did I mention (sorry can't remember) that a faith healer was photographed with an ultra-something camera showing his/her aura to extend well beyond an "ordinary" person's? I might have as it might just be high metabolism burn-off. Then again, could be similar to Chinese culture having regard for stimulation pressure points (= bloodflow helping wash away impurities quicker). Probably for much longer than 2000 years ago.

[hairybuddha]

My assertion was that empirical evidence isn't scientific proof

They are the same thing. There is nothing in this world that is proven with 100% probability. But we know from experience and because of the evidence that we have that there are medical based treatments for Ebola and other diseases that work. And we know that faith healing is nonsense. Even if the faith healer is able to trigger a placebo effect in some people, it is the placebo effect and not the faith healer who is doing the healing.

I find your angle on this quite worrying. It is the kind of mistrust of science that means we remain utterly unable to do anything about anthropogenic climate change or refuse to use GM foods. Complete zombie thinking (faith healers also can't help you with zombyism by the way).

[Annie.]

Also, transcendental meditation?
I know a very down to earth person who has seen people take off, spin round and land all in the lotus position, admittedly the height the people was at wasn't 10feet high or anything like, however it was to high to "pretend" and to be able to do it.

Personally, I think the ( UN) ? conscious mind is capable of much more.

[hairybuddha]

I know a very down to earth person who has seen people take off, spin round and land all in the lotus position,

You know a down to earth person who saw someone levitate? I despair.

[mosy]

@ hairybuddha: No, they're not the same thing (empirical observation and scientific proof). I despair at your thinking if you back GM foods given their environmental consequences. But hey, believe what you want - we all do

[Annie.]

HB, I never mind that you despair, you seem that kind of person

[Columbus]

"One chap shown on TV could place lots of spoons vertically on his person that stayed put. Unless he had a gullet-full of a chain of magnets it's hard to know how he could do that."

Mosy - you may not know how the metal spoon thing is done (and I'm sure I don't either) but that doesn't mean it makes sense to jump to the conclusion it is supernatural powers. If that were the case then I think I would have to jump to the conclusion that any top magician has super powers because they can all do things that I can't explain...but of course they don't (some explicitly state they don't, although they won't normally tell you how they did it).

People who claim these special powers are debunked when examined properly by people with relevant experience, whether that be through inability to reproduce in lab conditions or others such as Penn and Teller showing how something done. e.g. spoon bending

Annie - if you go on youtube and see "david blaine levitating" then you see it looks real and people there are freaked out. But you also google "david blaine levitating debunked" you can see how it is done. Not saying the levitation in your friend's case is the same method, but that there will be a more normal explanation.

[mosy]

@ Annie. There's a video here of a yogic flying competition. It looks more like a feat of strength rather than some sort of "static rise" since the competitors look jolly happy that they've made it rather than being oblivious, I.e. knee and arm strength to uplift the torso after many hours of training. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlw8CxTkyxA I asked some free runners on Silverdale how the heck they could do a jump (like a cat-like spring) to land themselves atop a 5ft pillar in one leap - answer being "many hours in the gym".

I don't know how your friend would counter that. A friend of mine, youngish and in no way dippy, believed her unseen friends were looking after her. Who am I to say they aren't? No point relating hearsay examples. Might also be in line with the view that we know things before our brain tells us we know them, i.e. agree the un-conscious mind knows more that it's cracking on.

@ Columbus - your post just in. I take supernatural to mean in your context something one can inexplicably do that I or most can't - not that it's heaven sent or in some way "out of this world" assistance. I wouldn't believe that card sharps can memorise two packs of cards and which have been laid down, but they can. Now (meaning modern enlightened times of figuring out
trickery instead of just standing back in awe) we know they can and many things can be explained or debunked. But can all of things?

[SepticSkeptic]

Q. But Can all things.?
A. Yes.