Sandra Mae Shaw

[derrida]

[Craig Browning]

[Kevin Kane]

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!

[derrida]

thats not evidence
thats just another story

hope it will come the time when believers can understand the difference between both

[Kevin Kane]

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.

[derrida]

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

[Arouet]

[derrida]

[ProfWag]

[Kevin Kane]

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.

[ProfWag]

[Kevin Kane]

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.

[ProfWag]

[derrida]

[Arouet]