Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
12 posts • Page 1 of 1
I'm afraid that I have to raise the flag to point something out about the different standards that Skeptics must adhere to in this forum. In another thread, I was using a reference from the National Academy of Science to support a statement that I was making. The response I received was: "Um are you naive? You actually think that a group put together and controlled by a governing elite is going to be unbiased, objective and logical with no agenda or vested interest? lol That's what I call blind faith."
In other threads, a poster has referred to Dorothy Allison's psychic detective "gift" and used as his references a book by Scott Jacobson (whoever that is) and the Unsolved Mysteries TV series. These "references" were not criticized in the least.
Now I ask, if you are truly trying to support the belief in things paranormal, how can a solid, valid source that is totally acceptable by academics, governments, and the public alike be totally thrown out with me being called "naive," yet a reference in support of paranormal abilities from the Unsolved Mysteries be heralded as a totally acceptable source?
I eagerly await some explanations.
I gave good reasons for both sources.
* Actual video interviews with the Police Detectives and Family Members of the Victims and Dorothy herself in the Unsolved Mysteries Episode. The reason this is significant is because the information is straight from the most important sources. The Police Detectives, The Family Members of the Victims, and Dorothy herself. And the information presented in the segment can be cross-referenced with other more indepth sources on the cases presented, and it matches. (So you can't claim they made stuff up.)
The rebuttal to this is that it is a TV Show, and that those interviewed must have been either misrepresented, taken out of context (impossible when you actually watch the interviews), or they used clever editing to get the result they wanted, etc. All of which are unproven arm chair conspiracy theories on the part of the Skeptics. *Gives you your tin foil hat*.
* In the Foreword to the Scott Jacobson Book, it states...
"Material for this book was gathered from several sources. Dorothy's own retelling of the stories has been supported by newspaper and magazine articles and signed affidavits from many of the parties involved. In most cases, the families of the victims have cooperated fully, regardless of the fact that the interviews stirred unpleasent memories. Many of the law-enforcement officers involved have also given generously of their time in recounting their experiences with the psychic detective." - Scott Jacobson in Foreward to 'Dorothy Allison: A Psychic Story'
The rebuttal to this is that he is simply lying. Another unproven arm chair conspiracy theory.
All you guys could come up with was arm chair conspiracies theories about how both sources must be flawed, as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual fact. It's all "Doubt Throwing" Tactics.
I've stated time and time again that I NEED more solid sources than these to fully verify these accounts. However, with the absence of such better sources, these are the best available currently given what we have available to us regarding Dorothy Allison.
I'd love to interview *all sides*, the Police Detectives who found her useful, and those who didn't. Everyone involved on the cases that she got spectacular hits on, and those where she got terribly off misses on.
My main point is that Skeptics say that everything Dorothy did can be chalked up to weak general clues "I see water, I see trees, I see a billboard" that turned out to be weak easily explainable hits, combined with several slightly above average lucky guesses that weren't anything, and the data I presented suggests there ARE very good cases of hers, and ARE very spectacular hits that don't fit into the standard mold. That's my main point, some of these cases highly suggests there might be something there with her. It's about dealing with the *existing* data, not arm chair conspiracy theories.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
You are singing to the choir here ProfWag. I have been trying to get my hands on something....anything.... where anyone who can be questioned doesn't require a medium to find them.
Eteponge probably has the best example that exists among the population of this forum and possibly beyond. Resources are limited and as you can see, any form of the subject matter in a skeptic acceptable format is few and far between.
In my 'research' I have found that one particular detective who had used a phsychic never officially made mention of it due to the fact that it might have created a legal loophole in court to be used against the credibility of the evidence and allowing the suspect to go free on a technicallity. Meanwhile, I will keep going around asking if anything of this nature exists on paper that we can use to further this discussion. I will also keep on asking about any unknown information about Ms. Allison that might be of interest to Eteponge. As they say, "Rome wasn't built in a day".
Okay, I'll try to be patient. Surely there is a case out there where a psychic directly solved a crime. I mean, there is a popular TV series devoted to the triumphs of Allison Dubois. There must be police records supporting these claims. Surely.
I do love your dry sense of humor ProfWag.
Unfortunately, the really good humor I'm capable of is little more than dirty jokes I learned 25 years ago which aren't appropriate for this particular forum.
May I then correct my use of the word 'humor' and replace it with 'wit'?
Unfortunately, any hits that a "psychic or medium" might have are often over shadowed by popular people like Sylvia Brown, thus making any actual research hard to come by. Once she or people like her get involved, then you might as well hit yourself in the head with a brick for all the good it is going to do "you" to get involved.
*Insert something witty and funny and non-offensive*
12 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest