horse communicators and reason out the window

glamourpuss said:
Re: the dog in the barrel. I would bet it went actually something like this:
'He's telling me about a dog. It was in something. Could it be a box? A bucket? A water trough? A barrel? (Owner responds enthusiastically to barrel because suddenly they remember the dead dog)
It was a fairly small dog (would have to be to fit in a barrel, no?) owner confirms it it was a Jack Russell.
Ah yes, he's telling me it was always a happy little thing (well have you ever seen a miserable Jack Russell)
Click to expand...

glamourpuss said:
Pearlsasinger nothing you are saying is convincing me that this Animal Communicator was actually reading the horse's mind. I think that it can still be explained. You are saying you have proved it but you haven't done anything of the sort you've just got angry because I refuse to accept an anecdotal account as hard evidence!
You say you've proved she communicated with the horse so PLEASE send your animal communicator friend to the James Randi foundation immediately to claim her $1,000,000 as soon as she is paid I will accept that I have lost 'the bet'
Click to expand...

I did NOT say that I had proved anything. I said that you had lost the bet about a conversation that you thought must have taken place when in actual fact no conversation at all had taken place.
I couldn't actually give a toss about what you believe but I would like you to acknowledge that you were wrong about the conversation and put your money where your mouth was!
 
YorksG you misunderstand me at no point am I calling you a liar! Absolutely not!! I think you are relaying the event exactly as you remember it happening. I am just saying that I believe that the communicators skill is not being able to communicate with animals but can be attributed to something much more scientific. My opinion.

I doubt my opinion will change as I get older [laughs like a drain] I'm bloody ancient now :D

I have attended a psychic reading. I was amazed at the things the person knew about me. I raved about the information given to me. It wasn't until I learnt about the pyschological techniques used that I realised that actually what had happened was nothing more than a very accurate cold reading & me, subconsciously, filling in the gaps.
I actually don't think that all Animal Communicators or psychics are charlatans out to rip off Joe public. I think some have an amazing talent for reading people, fishing, use of negative phraseology that is inate to them so they honestly believe they are communicating with the dead/animals.
 
You have implied several times, including in your last reply that I am at best unable to remember conversations, at worst deliberatly giving misinformation. Either you can't read acurately, or you refuse to acknowlege anything which does not support your point of view.
 
YorksG I have just had toread through my replies & I still don't understand why this hostility towards my responses. I honestly cannot see where I am implying you are deliberating giving misinformation. I speak of human nature, of phenomenon which all people are susceptible to....me included!!
You are saying that I refuse to acknowledge anything that does not support my point of view. Isn't that what believing in something is?
The difference is my 'belief' is supported by proven research whereas yours......?

Anyhoo I'm off to bed. Sweet dreams
 
glamourpuss said:
YorksG I have just had toread through my replies & I still don't understand why this hostility towards my responses. I honestly cannot see where I am implying you are deliberating giving misinformation. I speak of human nature, of phenomenon which all people are susceptible to....me included!!
You are saying that I refuse to acknowledge anything that does not support my point of view. Isn't that what believing in something is?
The difference is my 'belief' is supported by proven research whereas yours......?

Anyhoo I'm off to bed. Sweet dreams
Click to expand...

How does your 'cold reading' fit with an e-mail conversation, where I stated several times that I did not know what the dog in the barrel meant? How do you suggest that some one can cold read, I do not know what you are talking about. Admittedly you appear to not know what I am talking about, and I am stating it clearly and have done throughout the thread. You believe I am a gullible idiot, you have no proof of this, scientific or otherwise, well fancy that.
 
Hippona said:
Actually....i would be one of those who would have been ridiculed for believing the world was round. The world being flat was an accepted "fact" at one point.
Turned out to be not actually fact at all........ ;)
Click to expand...

At the heart of scientific inquiry is always the possibility of revising what we previously thought was truth, but still none of this equates to accepting just about anything as truth. Retaining the possibility that one has made a mistake is one thing, accepting absolutely anything as true because of the possibility of having made a mistake is another.

There are these major differences between how we go about thinking about the shape of the earth that simply do not apply to psychics:

1. We may have thought the earth was flat and then round and then eliptical but each time there was good reason for thinking this (e.g. flat: look we are not falling off the earth, round: look there is a solar system that accounts for gravity so we don't fall off a ball, etc.)

2. This reason could be verified by a number of ways both theoretical arguments and applied ones. Over time the arguments have changed in light of new knowledge but at the time, given what we knew, they were convincing. This is different from saying "there are no arguments, this is not convincing in any way now, but accept it as true anyway".

3. The account of the shape of the earth fits in with our general understanding of physical laws and doesn't violate any of them. It makes sense along everything else we currently know.

4. The arguments for the shape of the earth are open to scientific experimentation, replication, dissemination, challenge and eventually revision in light of new facts. They are not "inexplicable, you could never understand what I am doing because you don't have an open mind and I am too insulted to give an account of what I am doing, or ever replicated in laboratory conditions because you are being mean by challenging me". In fact the times where you get the worst accounts of the shape of the earth (the least close to the truth) are times when scientific inquiry was denigrated and ideas were accepted on faith rather than reason (e.g. the ancient Greeks with their exceptional astrology skills though the earth was spherical, it was the Medieval Christians that imposed the flat earth idea).

Psychics meet none of these requirements and the claim that people can 'read' animal minds is not like saying we thought the earth was flat but now we think it is eliptical, but rather equivalent to saying that the shape of the earth is "the sound oooomphffpt" (i.e. nonesensical in every way).
 
Booboos I think I actually love you.

Pearlsasinger I've just seen your repeated claims about 'the bet' firstly I was under the impression that I was just using a turn of phrase. Hence the use of 'I would bet' there was no mention of a stake -
Also if we are really getting into the semantics of what I have relayed I did say that the conversation went *something* like. The email 'conversation' may well have gone something like that.
I have tried to be reasoned, I have clearly stated that these are my opinions & that I respect your opinions. I have stated that I don't think you are lying. I have never referred to you or implied that you are a gullible idiot - these are all accusations that you have somehow plucked from my postings. Postings that I have reread &, if I'm honest, I cannot see what you are getting so defensive about.
I will repeat it again. I do not think you you are lying or providing an incorrect account. However I do not think the person communicated with your horse, I believe they used other psychological methods which have been proven by research.
If the way I phrased my initial post has offended you then I do apologise for that but I do not apologise for having a different opinion or belief to you.
 
Horserider that's the beauty of science. Sometimes scientists do get it wrong but a good scientist learns from mistakes & amends theories when presented with evidence.
 
glamourpuss said:
. However I do not think the person communicated with your horse, I believe they used other psychological methods which have been proven by research.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Before handing over any money to these "readers" and snake oil salesmen - just ask them if they would be prepared to take up the $1,000,000 challenge - I'm almost willing to bet another $1,000,000 that any of them would say - ah, I'm afraid it doesn't work like that."
 
glamourpuss said:
Horserider that's the beauty of science. Sometimes scientists do get it wrong but a good scientist learns from mistakes & amends theories when presented with evidence.
Click to expand...

It's not just the good scientists - it's the very foundation of science. To observe, form a theory - test that theory and see if it holds good in all cases and then modify the theory until it models reality by repeatable experiment.

Modern day Conspiracy is mostly made up of people who don't understand how most things work and are ignorant of Physics and Chemistry - therefore they are prime material for outlandish suggestions simply because the reasons behind the Conspiracy suits - rather like religion!
 
1stclassalan said:
Modern day Conspiracy is mostly made up of people who don't understand how most things work and are ignorant of Physics and Chemistry - therefore they are prime material for outlandish suggestions simply because the reasons behind the Conspiracy suits - rather like religion!
Click to expand...

There is some really interesting research on how the proliferation of ideas via the internet has actually resulted in people who will believe anything as they lack the skills (and will?) to critically assess the source of the information. Have you come across the tree-octopus study?
 
Booboos said:
At the heart of scientific inquiry is always the possibility of revising what we previously thought was truth, but still none of this equates to accepting just about anything as truth. Retaining the possibility that one has made a mistake is one thing, accepting absolutely anything as true because of the possibility of having made a mistake is another.

There are these major differences between how we go about thinking about the shape of the earth that simply do not apply to psychics:

1. We may have thought the earth was flat and then round and then eliptical but each time there was good reason for thinking this (e.g. flat: look we are not falling off the earth, round: look there is a solar system that accounts for gravity so we don't fall off a ball, etc.)

2. This reason could be verified by a number of ways both theoretical arguments and applied ones. Over time the arguments have changed in light of new knowledge but at the time, given what we knew, they were convincing. This is different from saying "there are no arguments, this is not convincing in any way now, but accept it as true anyway".

3. The account of the shape of the earth fits in with our general understanding of physical laws and doesn't violate any of them. It makes sense along everything else we currently know.

4. The arguments for the shape of the earth are open to scientific experimentation, replication, dissemination, challenge and eventually revision in light of new facts. They are not "inexplicable, you could never understand what I am doing because you don't have an open mind and I am too insulted to give an account of what I am doing, or ever replicated in laboratory conditions because you are being mean by challenging me". In fact the times where you get the worst accounts of the shape of the earth (the least close to the truth) are times when scientific inquiry was denigrated and ideas were accepted on faith rather than reason (e.g. the ancient Greeks with their exceptional astrology skills though the earth was spherical, it was the Medieval Christians that imposed the flat earth idea).

Psychics meet none of these requirements and the claim that people can 'read' animal minds is not like saying we thought the earth was flat but now we think it is eliptical, but rather equivalent to saying that the shape of the earth is "the sound oooomphffpt" (i.e. nonesensical in every way).
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is......again....we do not have the wherewithall to prove any of these claims RIGHT NOW.
One day we may. Doesnt mean these things cannot or do not happen....you cannot extrapolate that.
BTW...I'm not a total thicko...I have an MSc...I'm not ignorant of the basics of research and evidence.

I shall just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
 
Hippona said:
All I'm saying is......again....we do not have the wherewithall to prove any of these claims RIGHT NOW.
One day we may. Doesnt mean these things cannot or do not happen....you cannot extrapolate that.
BTW...I'm not a total thicko...I have an MSc...I'm not ignorant of the basics of research and evidence.

I shall just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

I'm with you Hippona
No I will not post the e-mail, as there are other things in it which I do not wish to share on a public forum, also if you don't believe what I've typed, why would you believe that I haven't 'created' the e-mails just for you?
 
Hippona said:
All I'm saying is......again....we do not have the wherewithall to prove any of these claims RIGHT NOW.
One day we may. Doesnt mean these things cannot or do not happen....you cannot extrapolate that.
BTW...I'm not a total thicko...I have an MSc...I'm not ignorant of the basics of research and evidence.

I shall just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

1. You have not addressed any of my points above which I took great pains to write in response to your argument that science gets it wrong.

2. If your position is that just because something has no proof now it doesn't mean that it won't have proof in the future, where do you draw the line? We have absolutely no proof now that telekinesis, predicting the future, swaping bodies and unicorns exist but who knows about the future? Does that mean you believe in all these things now?

3. Absence of direct evidence that something is the case is not always problematic, e.g. we have no direct proof that black holes exist but there are still good reasons to suppose that they do because of everything else we know about the universe. Psychic abilities clash with everything else we know about how the natural world works, they are not just unproven, they are contrary to everything we have proven.
 
Last edited:
YorksG said:
I'm with you Hippona
No I will not post the e-mail, as there are other things in it which I do not wish to share on a public forum, also if you don't believe what I've typed, why would you believe that I haven't 'created' the e-mails just for you?
Click to expand...

No one has called you a liar. People have suggested though that in this instance you were gullible in a way very typical of all human beings.

Surely a public forum is the best place for this amazing evidence of psychic ability. One look at this e-mail and you believed this person was genuine, imagine sharing all this with the hundreds if not thousands of people who read the forum.
 
Booboos said:
2. If your position is that just because something has no proof now it doesn't mean that it won't have proof in the future, where do you draw the line? We have absolutely no proof now that telekinesis, predicting the future, swaping bodies and unicorns exist but who knows about the future? Does that mean you believe in all these things now?
Click to expand...

Didn't they just prove that Telepathy existed recently? I think it was with rats.

I think people can believe in whatever they want, whether you consider them a raging imbecile for not requiring scientific proof is entirely irrelevant.

The day an animal communicator holds you down and demands money with menaces for a reading with your dog, then maybe you have an argument to be so opposed. Otherwise, I really do not know what the big deal is. I like the FACT that there is mystery in life, makes it far more interesting.
 
Booboos said:
1. You have not addressed any of my points above which I took great pains to write in response to your argument that science gets it wrong.

2. If your position is that just because something has no proof now it doesn't mean that it won't have proof in the future, where do you draw the line? We have absolutely no proof now that telekinesis, predicting the future, swaping bodies and unicorns exist but who knows about the future? Does that mean you believe in all these things now?

.
Click to expand...

1. Where did I say that science gets it wrong:confused:

2. Yes....if it annoys you. Because I can.:p
 
Hippona said:
2. Yes....if it annoys you. Because I can.:p
Click to expand...

It doesn't annoy me at all. Why would your irrational beliefs annoy me? That's a surprising amount of importance you accord to your beliefs.

Don't confuse what you can do with what you should do. Of course you can hold silly beliefs, of course you can post them online and refuse to engage with people who disagree with you...whether you should be doing any of these things is another matter.
 
Serephin said:
Oh, my mistake, they implanted something into their brains so that they could communicate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ing-implant-gives-rats-telepathic-powers.html

was excited for a moment there :D
Click to expand...

You should be excited! That is brilliant, cutting-edge neuroscience! There is so much in the actual brain that is incredible there is no need to invent magical powers.

(DM article is as always utter dross, but thanks for the other link Gloi, incredibly interesting)
 
I don't know how anyone can doubt animal communication??

Has no one seen Dr Doolittle, Skippy, Lassie or Flipper? there you go, concrete proof :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top