View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Sandra Mae Shaw

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby derrida » 11 Nov 2010, 04:50

Kevin Kane wrote:The family strongly affirm that they found the girls with the information provided by the psychic.

The evidence is .. they found the girls, just as the psychic described. The acted upon her advice, and they found them shortly afterwards, searching where the psychic told them to. And they credit the psychic.

I don't know how to tell you this, but this is a solid hit. 2 + 2 = 4


not it is not

you think a story equals a hit. when is not
all you have is a story of a family saying ¨they believe¨the psychic help
thats just a story and most rational people know that people have bad memories, bad recollection and make mistakes
so it doesnt translates to a HIT

if you want to break all the laws of physics you better have extraordinary evidence
the only thing you have is a story

if you want people to believe you a couple of girls saw some fairis in the forest
you better have something better to back it up that some blurry pictures and a story
in this case all you have is a story

hardly qualifies as evidence
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29






Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Craig Browning » 12 Nov 2010, 03:12

derrida wrote:the thing is.. kevin quickly jumped to extraordinary conclussions
and there´s no way you can be so sure about the event
there´s not that much information, it isnt 100% that the psychic actually helped in the search
i would be very cautious to jump to conclussions, i wouldnt want to appear THAT irrational

why stop at psychics?
i can allege that bigfoot was the killer!
there´s no stop when you start with irrational thoughts


I'll give you one on this point and go as far as to state that some (many) that fall into the "believer's" category fall short and are just as blinded for reasons of personal "need" to have validation... they fail to look at an issue "critically" and ask some rather fundamental questions... however, I have it on good authority that big foot has never held a job as a butler e.g. he couldn't have done it... it was Col. Butler... ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Kevin Kane » 16 Nov 2010, 11:26

ProfWag:
"Do you happen to know what this letter said?"

Hi PF. The first article mentions they were "goodbye letters", so I'm guessing they were saying goodbye. I'm pretty sure the letters didn't say where they were going, because the police didn't find any clues in them.

derrida:
"hardly qualifies as evidence"

The evidence is that it worked. That's really all that needs to be explained. If I were a skeptic, I'd put this down to luck, a lucky hit. But if you wish to paint it as some blurry, sketchy anecdote, that's your choice, but it doesn't change the fact that it got the job done. Yes, the family believed the psychic and took it serious .. because they were desperate .. and it worked!
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby derrida » 16 Nov 2010, 12:43

thats not evidence
thats just another story

hope it will come the time when believers can understand the difference between both
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Kevin Kane » 16 Nov 2010, 13:28

How would derrida explain what happen? Like this:

It was a dark and stormy night. Scooby Doo and Shaggy were searching for Velma and Daphne, who ate poison mushrooms while owl-hunting in the haunted forest. All of a sudden a spooky psychic appeared and started chanting the Kabbalah .. blah blah blah.

Story = anecdote = subjective experience = not credible = false

Except it's documented and evidenced. The story is consistent and simple. They consulted a psychic and got results. End of story.
Last edited by Kevin Kane on 16 Nov 2010, 13:43, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby derrida » 16 Nov 2010, 13:37

dude.. this is what you are doing

i start praying to the indian gods to win the lottery
and then i happen to win 50 dollars..

were those the indian gods that helped me? of was it chance?

of course it was chance!..
but you will never see it that way cause you believe in fairies and indian gods and harry potter is real
thats the difference between being rational and being a believer
i know things can happen due to chance
if you think sandra is real. then she should be able to replicate it many more times
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Arouet » 16 Nov 2010, 13:57

Kevin Kane wrote:They consulted a psychic and got results. End of story.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby derrida » 16 Nov 2010, 15:11

Arouet wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:They consulted a psychic and got results. End of story.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc


exactly!!!!
but he will never see it that way

if kk was under a test of guessing cards out of 52..
every time he guesses the right card out of 52 is because he is a psychic
every time he misses he will forget about it and say he wasnt concentrate at all or bs like that


stories.. nothing but stories and wishful thinking
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby ProfWag » 16 Nov 2010, 18:32

Kevin Kane wrote:ProfWag:
"Do you happen to know what this letter said?"

Hi PF. The first article mentions they were "goodbye letters", so I'm guessing they were saying goodbye. I'm pretty sure the letters didn't say where they were going, because the police didn't find any clues in them.


That's exactly right Kevin, you are "guessing" what was in the letter, just as you are "guessing" that there are no other parts to the story that wasn't revealed in the news article. Personally, I can't accept "guessing" when it comes to evidence of a psychic's abilities, but if you want to believe it, then more power to you, however, I think it is important to point out that we as the general public really shouldn't base our belief in psi on what could possibly (probably) be an incomplete or even slightly inaccurate story.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Kevin Kane » 16 Nov 2010, 19:53

PF, a conclusion based on logic. Science does it all the time. And the information and details can be ascertained if someone were to investigate it more thoroughly. So I wouldn't persue your line too far. It is logical. You're suggesting that Sandra had access to some vital information that the family and the police didn't have. Or perhaps you're calling the family and police too stupid to figure it out. Which is it?


Nor is it just a story, but a real, recent, and relevant occurance. Science is an investigation of reality.

If you're suggesting this is a Post Hoc conclusion, then what is the real cause? And remember, there isn't much leeway here. If I ask someone for directions, and they give me directions, and I follow their directions, and I get to the right place based on their directions, causal links are apparent.

Is it replicable? Sandra Mae is a professional psychic, yet she's never done a case like this before. If they asked a non-psychic to find the girls, would they get the correct answer? Well, they already did. Themselves and the police. While not evidence, but logically, a credible psychic such as Sandra has a higher chance of replication than a non-psychic.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby ProfWag » 16 Nov 2010, 21:47

Kevin Kane wrote:PF, a conclusion based on logic. Science does it all the time. And the information and details can be ascertained if someone were to investigate it more thoroughly. So I wouldn't persue your line too far. It is logical. You're suggesting that Sandra had access to some vital information that the family and the police didn't have. Or perhaps you're calling the family and police too stupid to figure it out. Which is it?


I don't think it fair to compare an article in the paper with a conclusion resulting from a scientific experiment. I doubt very highly you believe everything you read in the paper.
I'm not suggesting as the only explanation that Sandra had access to vital information, I'm also suggesting that an article in the newspaper or othere source may not be reporting all of the facts.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Kevin Kane » 16 Nov 2010, 22:46

I agree that it would be optimum to have as many details and verifications as possible, and maybe Sandra and/or the family will write a book about the event, with documentations. But we don't live in laboratories. I've stated before that paranormal phenomena occurs for a reason. If you test psychic abilities in a lab, that's not the reason. If you're doing it for money or recognition, that's not the reason. If you're trying to survive and save lives, that's the reason. It's a survival mechanism.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby ProfWag » 16 Nov 2010, 22:52

Kevin Kane wrote: If you're trying to survive and save lives, that's the reason. It's a survival mechanism.

And how many times has a psychic saved a life?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby derrida » 17 Nov 2010, 00:29

Kevin Kane wrote: If you're doing it for money or recognition, that's not the reason.


WAIT!!
then.. here SANDRA MAE is did this and got fmae and your recognition (and im sure it wasnt free)
So.. it musnt be paranormal
thats it
:lol: :lol: :lol:
derrida
 
Posts: 308
Joined: 08 Oct 2010, 04:29

Re: Sandra Mae Shaw

Postby Arouet » 17 Nov 2010, 01:08

derrida wrote:WAIT!!
then.. here SANDRA MAE is did this and got fmae and your recognition (and im sure it wasnt free)
So.. it musnt be paranormal
thats it
:lol: :lol: :lol:


Are you drunk?

Edit: ok, i think I see what you meant to say!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests