Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[edwest2]

Yes, that is correct. Both the American and the (back then) Soviet governments wasted a lot of good money to investigate the claims of such nature. And NOT one of them presented evidence for the existence of any paranormal. On the other hand, all the properly designed and executed double blind experiments came back with a huge “NO”.

I disagree. There is good evidence that some conclusions regarding the nature of at least one phenomenon were (a) preplanned to be negative, (b) the information used to refute the evidence ranged from the ridiculous to the bizarre, and (c) the conclusion did not confirm or deny the existence of the phenomena, but was evasive and not relevant.

I specialize in post-War military technology and investigations by various (mostly US) agencies, scientific study groups and others assigned to investigate “paranormal” phenomena not just for its existence but as to their possible use to spy upon or damage the former Soviet Union in some way.

The Church uses experts from various fields to investigate certain events that defy known physical conditions.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/documentary_on_miracle_of_pacocha_submarine_debuts_in_peru/

This is and cannot be broadcast by the mainstream media. It might inspire belief in that being whose name begins with the letter G

Ed

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The Church uses experts from various fields to investigate certain events that defy known physical conditions.

Does the church employ the professional deceivers (stage magicians), who are qualified to separate the wheat from the chaff?

catholicnewsagency.com/news/documentary_on_miracle_of_pacocha_submarine_debuts_in_peru/

This is and cannot be broadcast by the mainstream media. It might inspire belief in that being whose name begins with the letter G

The real reason is much simpler. They do not broadcast it, because it is an unsubstantiated, hearsay anecdotal story, without any credibility whatsoever. However, you (and like minded people) could repeat the experiment. Get locked into a similar chamber, let the water pour in and start praying to the same person or anyone else. Let’s see if you survive the experiment. A properly controlled and repeated experiment would be compelling.

But I predict that you will not try it. Just like all those proponents of the paranormal who are unable to perform when the setup of the experiment is dome by the real professionals.

 

[edwest2]

Does the church employ the professional deceivers (stage magicians), who are qualified to separate the wheat from the chaff?

The real reason is much simpler. They do not broadcast it, because it is an unsubstantiated, hearsay anecdotal story, without any credibility whatsoever. However, you (and like minded people) could repeat the experiment. Get locked into a similar chamber, let the water pour in and start praying to the same person or anyone else. Let’s see if you survive the experiment. A properly controlled and repeated experiment would be compelling.

But I predict that you will not try it. Just like all those proponents of the paranormal who are unable to perform when the setup of the experiment is dome by the real professionals.

Interesting. So Naval experts who stated that what this man did was not humanly possible is of no consequence? Top Naval officials are not real professionals?

Please do not insult me.

Ed

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Interesting. So Naval experts who stated that what this man did was not humanly possible is of no consequence? Top Naval officials are not real professionals?

All you presented was an unsubstantiated, anecdotal story. I suggested a way to give credence to it. Looks like you decline. So I will decline to entertain your story any further. Put your money where your mouth is, after all talk is cheap.

Please do not insult me.

If that was an “insult” to you, that is your personal problem.

 

[tonyrey]

It is a hearsay story, nothing to investigate. That is the common problem with the professed miracles, especially the ones connected to “miraculous healings”. There is a good reason that skeptics would prefer the regrowth of missing limbs. Cancer can be misdiagnosed, cancer can go into spontaneous remission. On the other hand, missing limbs can be seen by everyone, they cannot be misdiagnosed. And there is no documented event that a missing arm would regrow - even though some animals have very good regeneration abilities.

So the miraculous healings at Lourdes would be excellent testing grounds. The way to do it, get a bunch of people with missing limbs, send them to Lourdes, and examine the results. In science only “prediction counts”. I make a prediction: “there will be NO miraculous regeneration of missing limbs”. I am also willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you willing to bet against me?

There is one huge difference between my hypothetical experiment and alleged events at Fatima. What I suggest is an ongoing phenomenon, available for everyone. Day after day, year after year, the celestial bodies would perform their “dance” in the sky and display a new passage from the Bible. There are many laws of nature which we don’t know - yet. But the celestial mechanics is not one of them.

What you suggest is coercive evidence which would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…

 

[tonyrey]

Does the church employ the professional deceivers (stage magicians), who are qualified to separate the wheat from the chaff?

The real reason is much simpler. They do not broadcast it, because it is an unsubstantiated, hearsay anecdotal story, without any credibility whatsoever. However, you (and like minded people) could repeat the experiment. Get locked into a similar chamber, let the water pour in and start praying to the same person or anyone else. Let’s see if you survive the experiment. A properly controlled and repeated experiment would be compelling.

But I predict that you will not try it. Just like all those proponents of the paranormal who are unable to perform when the setup of the experiment is dome by the real professionals.

Just like all those proponents of the “normal” who are unable to perform the alleged miracle of deriving rational beings from **mindless **molecules when the setup of the experiment is done by the real professionals? A properly controlled and repeated experiment would be really compelling and obtain a Nobel prize…

 

[Bradski]

So here’s the thing, Bradski…don’t you find it extremely odd that Shermer has no interest in investigating this very, very curious event that is oh-so-personal and emotionally charged?

I’m sure he’ll be able to answer you directly: mshermer@skeptic.com

How did my requirement for proof of the supernatural sound? Reasonable? It does emphasise the need for positive evidence. As opposed to accepting something where evidence to the contrary can’t be found. I think you said earlier that if the church said it couldn’t find a natural cause for something you’d accept it as evidence. If I may, I could paraphrase that and you can tell me if I’m wrong in doing so:

We can’t find a natural cause for this event, therefore it must be supernatural/paranormal.

Is that reasonable?

And in regard to miracles in general (oh no, I can see where this thread is heading), Fatima has been done to death in other threads. Yes, there were lots of reported witness accounts but hard evidence was specifically lacking. It would be good if something equivalent occurred more recently where there’d be an excellent chance for something really specific. Photographic evidence perhaps. Like Mary’s appearance at Zeitoun.

This wasn’t just the sun appearing to move about. This wasn’t second hand reports of possible eye witnesses who may have heard something from someone. And this wasn’t a one off. This was the actual mother of the Son of God herself making regular appearances for hours at a time on a church roof in the middle of a town over a period of three years in front of (reported) millions.

Think of the footage we have of Kennedy getting shot (a few years before Mary’s rooftop walkabout). A one off event that lasted mere seconds. So imagine all the footage we’d have of Mary. All those people and their Kodak moments. All those movie cameras whirring away. All the gazillions of pictures. I mean, if you were there with a camera, how many rolls of film do you think you’d go through, for heaven’s sake.

All those dozens of pictures taken by each of those thousands upon thousands of people. It must have been the most photographed event in history. Spend a few minutes on the web if you will and let me know how you get on finding any. Well, any that don’t look like a Rorscharch test.

So forget Fatima. There were only thousands there. It was quite a long time ago. There are no photos. There is no hard evidence. Let’s go with Zeitoun! Millions saw this. In our lifetime. With photographic evidence! Why don’t we get this brought up as evidence of a miracle?

Well, that’s pretty obvious I’d say.

 

[Bradski]

What you suggest is coercive evidence which would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…

So it’s OK to have miracles which could be fake so it gives you the opportunity to choose to believe them, but if they were actually genuine, you wouldn’t have that choice?

Congratulations. You have just been awarded Weirdest Argument Of The Week. The cheque is in the mail.

 

[tonyrey]

God of the Gaps, exactly my point. You always have all the answers.

Well, the RCC speaks with authority, they dont speak from a neutral point. When asked about the specifics, it basically amounts to “We dont know, but, we know we’re right.” So they cant tell you how they got there, but they can certainly tell you they are right and you are wrong. That isnt the same as admitting we dont have the answers today, but we may one day have the answers.

“may” is the key word. It sounds as if atheists don’t speak from a neutral point but base their “knowledge” on the supreme Gap in science. Otherwise they would be agnostics…

 

[tonyrey]

So it’s OK to have miracles which could be fake so it gives you the opportunity to choose to believe them, but if they were actually genuine, you wouldn’t have that choice?

Congratulations. You have just been awarded Weirdest Argument Of The Week. The cheque is in the mail.

You should keep the cheque because you have succeeded in awarding yourself the honour of recognising the Weirdest Argument Of The Week by suggesting that miracles** never **occur because some are fakes, not to mention the fact that you are capable of understanding the meaning of the term “miracle” - which is itself a miracle!

The fact remains that** coercive** evidence would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that is correct. Both the American and the (back then) Soviet governments wasted a lot of good money to investigate the claims of such nature.

This ^^, very curious.

Again, it is SO UNSCIENTIFIC–you can see the cognitive dissonance it causes in believers, right?

Spending money trying to investigate claims is a waste?

Isn’t that…the point…of…

wait for it…
wait for it…

science?

You can see the utter amazement we feel when we read of a Science Advocate talking about a scientific endeavor being…a waste of time.

Wow.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that is correct. Both the American and the (back then) Soviet governments wasted a lot of good money to investigate the claims of such nature.

I am interested in your thoughts regarding this:
independent.co.uk/news/science/seti-the-hunt-for-et-1793984.html

Specifically, what do you think of the time spent on this? (Over 50 years)
What do you think of the amount of money and resrouces spent on this?

And, finally, what do you think of this:

1. So far, no alien signals have been heard, however.

 

[Bradski]

…by suggesting that miracles** never **occur because some are fakes…

Taking a page out of Peter’s play book. Misrepresenting what I say to deflect from what you have said (so I’ve cancelled the cheque as punishment). I have never said that miracles never occur. I have said that no evidence has been presented to me in regard to any miracle which I find personally credible. There have been very many. Consequently my position is that I don’t believe they occur. I’m sure you appreciate the difference.

And to add (to keep PR happy), I would be more than willing to change my mind if credible evidence is supplied. In fact, I would have no choice but to change my mind. But then, as you said in your earlier post, if a miracle was to be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, it would…

…defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe…

Why then would you make any argument in favour of any given miracle being true?

 

[Bradski]

I think SETI is a different case altogether. I appreciate that quite a few people would say that it’s a waste of time (and money) but it doesn’t compare with investigating the paranormal (or alien abductions etc.).

In those cases, individual events have been checked and found not to be true. You get to a point where you conclude that events of this type are always shown to be false and use induction (and only induction) to assume (and only assume) that further investigation into other similar events would bring the same result.

Unless something new is brought to the table, then that conclusion would stand. There have been many investigations, reasonably thorough and as someone mentioned earlier, considerable prize money offered for anyone who can prove, under laboratory conditions, that the paranormal exists. No takers.

SETI has barely scratched the surface in its investigation. It’s maybe equivalent to scraping the dirt in your backyard with a stick looking for dinosaur fossils. The new search has probably given us access to a bigger stick.

And in any case, it’s private money. Yuri Milner is forking out the $100 million over the next ten years and I’ve just done a back-of-the-envelope calculation: Considering his total wealth versus mine, that’s a weekly amount equal to what I’ll probably spend on beer at the footy game tomorrow night.

If he wants to spend it that way, then it keeps a few people in Australia busy at the Parkes telescope for a few years. I’ve no complaints.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What you suggest is coercive evidence which would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…

The three things you mention have nothing to do with the question. To KNOW something is infinitely better (more valuable) than to BELIEVE something. And to KNOW that God exists in no way would “coerce” us to behave in a certain way. It would actually give us the real FREEDOM to make meaningful choices. But this has been pointed out hundreds of times, and you still bring it up. Why?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Spending money trying to investigate claims is a waste?

It certainly can be a huge waste. Since investigating a claim MAY cost a lot of money, time and other resources, it would be impractical to investigate ALL the claims. If someone, or a group of people wish to invest their OWN time, money and resources into investigating some far-out claims, let them. It is no skin off our nose.

But since the time, money and resources are in short supply, it stands to reason that they will have to be spent on subjects which offer a return. There were and are zillions of claims for the supernatural and paranormal events, and NONE of them amounted to anything.

There is nothing “unscientific” to use a preliminary “sieve” and concentrate on the research which offers some good return. But you probably know this already, since you would not waste your own time on investigating claims about leprechauns, or New Age types of claims about the curative powers of pyramidal structures. So if you wish to use your own time and money judiciously, why do you want OTHER people to waste their money on the claims of some kooks?

 

[SonOfMan]

You should keep the cheque because you have succeeded in awarding yourself the honour of recognising the Weirdest Argument Of The Week by suggesting that miracles** never **occur because some are fakes, not to mention the fact that you are capable of understanding the meaning of the term “miracle” - which is itself a miracle!

The fact remains that** coercive** evidence would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…

So all of the alleged witnesses who saw Jesus’ miracles were all coerced by Jesus and their free will was impeded?

Surely after having hard evidence or an encounter, a person still has the free will to accept it and follow it just as much as they can reject it, right? Surely no purposes would be defeated?

Its also worth noting:

Your argument in another thread was that people choose their beliefs, when I and others were saying that it is impossible to choose your belief. Now here you are supporting the idea that knowing certain facts removes the free will/ability to choose your belief. Which is it, tony?

 

[Bradski]

Your argument in another thread was that people choose their beliefs, when I and others were saying that it is impossible to choose your belief. Now here you are supporting the idea that knowing certain facts removes the free will/ability to choose your belief. Which is it, tony?

I don’t see why Tony is not arguing against the veracity of miracles. He has two options as I see it:

Miracles do not occur: The Church is wrong.
Miracles do occur: There is no free will choice to believe.

Maybe there is a third. There is no proof either way that miracles occur or not so everyone is free to (wait for it) make up their own mind about them. So Pick A Box, Tony. First, second or third choice?

And let me know when you have some piccies of that miracle I mentioned earlier.

 

[Aloysium]

Interesting. . .

What is interesting is the story you posted. Thanks for sharing it with us. The story rings true because if it had been a matter of managing with the issue in accordance with normal procedures, they would not have conjured up such a story. There would be no need to make it up, especially given that they, as most people would know it would not be believed. I think many such stories are never told.

 

[oldcelt]

This ^^, very curious.

Again, it is SO UNSCIENTIFIC–you can see the cognitive dissonance it causes in believers, right?

Spending money trying to investigate claims is a waste?

Isn’t that…the point…of…

wait for it…
wait for it…

science?

You can see the utter amazement we feel when we read of a Science Advocate talking about a scientific endeavor being…a waste of time.

Wow.

Have we not been waiting for over two thousand years for the return of Christ? Did not Paul infer that it would occur in one generation?These are major issues that must be answered.

John