Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Healthy skepticism about supernatural claims

Expand Messages
  • yanniru
    Todd, So you are implyong that public verification requires scientific evidence, which is a falsifiable experiment. Not many members of the public are able to
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 11 4:28 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Todd,

      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.
      Richard

      --- 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
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.