Re: Healthy skepticism about supernatural claims
So you are implyong that public verification requires scientific evidence, which is a falsifiable experiment. Not many members of the public are able to do that.
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote:
> So, Richard, you have me a little bit confused. I thought you already knew what scientific evidence is. If you don't, then obviously there's a more serious problem here.
> - Todd Greene
> --- In Maury_and_Baty, "yanniru" <yanniru@> wrote:
> > Robert & Todd,
> > I refused to discuss the topic of public verification further with Robert because Robert refused to define what he meant by those words and instead recommended that I work it out with Randi.
> > That made any further discussion pointless.
> > Richard
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <rlbaty@> wrote:
> > --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote in response to my query:
> > >> "What do you, Todd, think a public
> > >> verification would look like?"
> > >
> > > Obviously it depends on the specific claim(s)
> > > being made. I'm just pointing out the general
> > > principle, and making the point that an awful
> > > lot of claimants merely play games rather than
> > > even attempting to actually deal with producing
> > > any good evidence in the first place. But it's
> > > like any such claim, you have to TEST it against
> > > relevant EVIDENCE, and then it has to pass the
> > > tests. (Obviously, the tests themselves have to
> > > be real tests, not just equivocal games.) But the
> > > person who runs away from the need to "back it up"
> > > in the first place (which is what just playing
> > > games is all about) is a person whose claims we
> > > are justified in ignoring. Vacuous claims are a
> > > rupiah a dozen. I'm not going to waste my time on
> > > vacuous claims made by people who have no intention
> > > of seriously attempting to back up a kind of claim
> > > that thousands of people have made which has never
> > > been substantiated.
> > Thanks for the further analysis. I think that pretty well explains why Richard was not willing to engage in that discussion here recently.
> > I was going to try and get you into that discussion and even share with you what was left of the $1,000,000.00 (after expenses).
> > Guess we'll have to look for another source!
> > Sincerely,
> > Robert Baty