 sj |
||
|
||
Where were the *psychics* on 9/11?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Date: 06 Sep 02 - 02:25 AM Why did you do that Amos? |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 08:02 PM Some of you already know there is a Part 2 to this thread!. Isn't that AMAZING??? Seriously though, you know where it is.... A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:39 PM Which cat? ,-)
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:15 PM CH, I am in touch with YOUR cat, but I don't think you'd want me to repeat what she has to say about you.:-) BTW, resisitance is futile - once you've experienced a "knowing" you will never feel the same way about such things ever again. And, you will have such an experience, even though your mind may be too much of a locked up steel trap door to recognise such when it happens. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Sep 02 - 03:02 PM LOL!!! Now! SEE!!!! That's the level of seriousness this thread deserves! Good on ya A! ,-)
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:59 PM I just knew you were gonna say that, CH!! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:51 PM Blah de blah de blah... Quick... some one start a part 2 to this nonsense... ;-) and then call up that Pet Psychic! |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:48 PM CH: You're contradicting yourself pretty fast. "It happens to all married people" means there's nothing psychic about it? Means its evidence, although anecdotal but dismissed because it happens too often to be of interest? Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence? Well, I guess that depends on wyhat you mean by anecdotal. Someone reports an experience, you have to assume they are falsifying it? In any case, if it is not evidence, then what are you left with? Test tubes, labs with Zener cards, and Ingo Swann making thermocouples change temperature which were buried in vacuum bottles ten feet under a concrete floor. Oh, that's only anecdotal because someone didn't like the controls? Get real, amigo -- more things there are under heaven and earth than in your skeptical, matter-delimited view of existence, and I believe you know more about that then you are letting on, to be honest with you. I grant you it is a difficult and uncomfortable subject, riddled with smoke, personal confusaions, and overlays and alterations and god-knows-what-all. But it might be worth the trouble to sort through those things, IMHO. Or at least not jjeer at those who are giving it their best effort. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:46 PM "is it possible for skeptics to be respectful and allow others to have a discussion about their experiences without the ridicule" No deal! ,-)
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Date: 05 Sep 02 - 02:22 PM CH, nobody asked you to...you've made no mystery about how you feel since way back when. Why, then, do you feel compelled to keep slinging mud into a thread where some of us would like to have a discussion, free of bullying, whether it meets with your approval or not? I ask once more, is it possible for skeptics to be respectful and allow others to have a discussion about their experiences without the ridicule, etc.? Can Mudcat be tolerant? |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:47 PM "both my wife and myself have a knack for knowing what the other is thinking" There's nothing 'psychic' about that dude... It happens to all married people... Psychics schmychics... put up or shut up I says... Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence... On the other hand, if such a belief is what helps ya get out of bed in the AM, then that's good for you I guess... Just don't expect me to take it even a little serious...
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 01:34 PM You got it, Bobo-me-boy! A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:46 PM Amos; you are no fool, I just hate trolls. Sorry to make you resort to being the referee. Thanks for your peace-making. Bobert: judges? Oh my. I hope you at least have popcorn or good beer! Good advice in any case. Have been enjoying your political discussions elsewhere too. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:39 PM Amos: Thanks fir the song. I'm amazed at your creativity and how you just seem to pull this stuff out while on the run. If it's possible for you to PM me the words, I'll record it and get you a copy. I'm sure there's a way I can print it but not too sure how. Last time I tried to print a post I got the whole danged thread. Everyone Else: Ladies and gentlemen, The 1st judge scores the fight: Peg 113, Taliesn 111; the 2nd judge scores the fight: Taliesn 114, Peg 113 and the 3rd judge has it Taliesn 113, Peg 113. We have a draw! Hey, what's everybody looking at? Move along, fight's over! (Strange thing is that you two are both really intellegent and good people and it's time to just "let it be". It's like a scab at this point. Keep picking at it and it'll never heel. Hey, if it were excluslively about ideas then fine. But it has become a little too personal. I'd suggest taking that part into a quiet room.) Now, as for "psychic phenomena (sp)", hmmmmmm, I haven't figured this one out but both my wife and myself have a knack for knowing what the other is thinking. Happens all the time. We're riding in the car and it's been afew minutes since either of us has spoken as we're consumed with the beauty of the ride and each in seperate thoughts (or one would think) and then one of us enevitably vocalizes that thought and, bang, you guessed it. And the stuff is so many times just so unrelated to what we had been conversing about earlier. And this happens *a lot*! Bobert's 3 cents worth...
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:19 PM Ah, sweet Peg....sigh. :>) There ya go makin' me a fool!! What's a puir feller tuh do??? :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 05 Sep 02 - 11:07 AM Wolfgang: oops! That was a typo actually. I used to misspell misspelling so often I had to buckle down and get it right. But I frequently have typos on Mudcat posts. My grammar is usually purty good tho. ;) Taliesn: get a life already and stop being so damn self-centered. I see your ego rearing its head in other threads now. You really need to stop inserting motivations and intentions into what I have written here. What is this crap about my "stated need" to "get" your name? As I said before I never accused you of actually being anyone and to people who are used to reading English sentences, the words "maybe" and "who knows?" in such sentences generally imply one is speculating, not accusing or blaming. Then when you went all nuts about it I figured I should play along. You keep accusing me of being defensive, but about what? I have not been accused of anything. I certainly don't care if people disagree with my opinions on psychic ability as long as they do it with some form of logic or reason or forethought. In some cases it is dismissed out of hand with bad grammar as I said already. If I seem to be calling you a jerk without actually doing so, well, fine, glad you picked up on that. Happy Solstice? In December? There's a couple holidays before that.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:53 AM Thanks a lot, Rick. But, well, at least it's out in the open now!! I can stop wondering whether you're listening! :>) A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Jeri Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:16 AM Taliesn, I am annoyed because you re-title messages to reflect who you're having a conversation with. I can't tell what thread it's in and many of these messages involve personal pissing contests. No offense - there's a tradition of pissing contests around here. I'd just prefer it if you had manners not to shove it in my face in the titles, which I DO read. The "Re: Original Subject" DOES have a purpose, especially to those who read from an index of messages instead of threads. Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:14 AM On the other hand, Amos is pure trouble! I wouldn't listen to a thing he says! Cheers Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Much Appreciated Amos From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 05 Sep 02 - 10:07 AM (quote) "I assure you from long acquainance that Peg is puredee Good People, and if you will just stop bristling like a pair of surprised kittens, I reckon you'll get along fine!" Point well-taken and appreciated. I can be stubborn and ,at times ,give in to the passion of the debate when holding my ground . Then readily apologize , *especially* when I've been wrong, for feathers ruffled and have even on occasion offered a fistful of the one's that I've lost in the maelstrom to cover the bare patches I've caused. I guess that's why it's a kind of tradition how two Irishmen , fresh from a fight , can then buy one or the other a drink in toasting of providing a *good* fight. It's also understood in America why there are so many marriages between Irish & Italians; it's simple , they *fight* divinely ;-)
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 09:36 AM You kids better play nice or I'm putting you in separate rooms, so help me!! :>) Taliesn, relax. You're obviously intelligent and articulate and we can always use more of that around here. I don't care, FWIW, whether you've posted to pagan groups, architectural groups, or groups for coprovores! Little collisions happen all the time in this medium, as I am sure you know. No need to get all stirred up. It's not to sweat over, pal. I assure you from long acquainance that Peg is puredee Good People, and if you will just stop bristling like a pair of surprised kittens, I reckon you'll get along fine! A |
|
Subject: RE: Awfully Defensive Peg From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 05 Sep 02 - 09:27 AM (quote) " hmm, GUEST Taliesn seems awful defensive 'bout sumthin'..." A case of a kettle, on the boil , calling the stove "defensive" I fear. Our entire dialogue was ignited by your most cordial invitation to your pre-judged indictment. Need I remind you of how you first burst onto thius thread: (quote) "I remember a few months ago when some idiot decided to pose that same question to the "leaders" of the pagan community; along the lines of, hey you guys are witches, why didn't you KNOW this would happen? Maybe it's even the same idiot, who knows? In any case this troll does not deserve a reply. " Right out of the gate your barely stifled snort of derision not only exposed an obviously raw-nerved hair-trigger of ready *defensiveness* over a completely *unrelated* incident , but in your moment of weakness let slip a rather "poor manners be damned" arrogance , barely couched , that doesn't exactly show a best face for a representative of one's presumably *evolved* culture. Your stated need to "get" the name betokens the cyber-vigilante-ism of which I spoke playing its hand and when someone else volunteers: (quote) "(quote) "Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. " ..then apparently "others" are doing some *checking*. I'm sorry that you've not once ever considered simply *asking* me up front in all of this. This suggests to me that you've already made up your mind from day one and I'm guilty till proven innocent in your exclusive court: (quote) "Yup. As I thought. Same idiot. " Obviously whatever psychic "gifts " you and your "pagan newslist" believe you possess have failed you, on the most fundamental level of spiritual wisdom , so far as the common courtesy to simply asking me? That is why I made a point of distinction over *pyschic* abilities are *not* to be confused with airs of any level of *spiritual advancement*. Your behavior has proven this caveat once again. I've apologized for allowing your initial bad manners for getting my Irish up and my giving in to my passions of the moment. On the other hand it's appaent to anyone reading our little dialogue that you believe any apology on your part even sugesting that you've got it all wrong is proposterous and quite out of the question My one and only email address : taliesn@mac.com Have a Happy Solstice and good luck contributing to the balancing the world's karma. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Sep 02 - 04:22 AM 'mispellings'? LOL Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:51 AM hmm, GUEST Taliesn seems awful defensive 'bout sumthin'... other than that, this discussion still seems concerned with arguing about the methodology of proving psychic phenomena...I thought it had been established that such phenomena cannot BE proven by the traditional criteria? For reasons already stated? Yes? And I agree, kat, it's frustrating that people just slag off what they probably just don't understand. Or they lump everything into some lowest-common denominator sort of box. "Like, gee, paranormal stuff? Oh, that must mean they've watched too many episodes of The X-Files! Dummies!" I do not think it is true across the board that people who believe in psychic phenomena are of lower intelligence. Quite the opposite, I'd say. I am certainly of above-average intelligence and I fully accept that there is a wide range of psychological and psychical human experience that cannot be fuly explained by traditional scientific proofs. I think that makes me open-minded, not naive. I would agree stupider-than-usual people are the ones who get addicted to psychic hotlines etc. but haven't we established most of those so-called professionals are charlatans and scam artists? I DO find it funny that the majority of posts moaning about how "stupid" it is to believe in psychic phenomena are full of bad grammar and mispellings...or maybe that's just me.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:28 AM Bobert's "My Crystal Ball Is Stuck in the Pawnshop Blues"
I done sold my incense, All yers, Bobert!! Get ahold of Tweed and knock 'em out on a disc, and you're on your way to the top of the charts!! LOL!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Date: 05 Sep 02 - 12:22 AM Preparing for the Equinox celebrations they were - occupied with more important matters. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 11:42 PM :>) From the p-eople who brought you the Uncola, Non-U, and Uncoolness in a Jar... A |
|
Subject: RE: *Pagan newslist*?? From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:13 PM (quote) "Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. " Oh ya just gotta looove this: an *unwitch hunt". Pagan Prosecutor: "Have you now ,or have you ever posted on a "Pagan newslist"? Accused: " Uhmm, no, your paganess ,sir . Actually I've never harbored any interest for a start..... " Pagan Prosecutor: " Silence. Then how do you explain the use of the same name on atleast one Pagan newslist we've been able to confirm? " Accused: " Gee, d'ya mind producing this alledged circumstancial evidence or is that *priviledged info*? You better have some hard evidence to produce publically there , Sparky , before this goes any further than it already has because I can already *intuitively* sense that a cyber-lynching is brewing here , with much "busy-ness" of hands & much muttering thorugh back-channels ,with a false accusation supplying the "warp & woof "for a kind of a paranormal paranoia most unbecoming begetting a cyber-vigilnate-ism most unclean . For shame you don't just ask *up front*. Make your case in the open then, I say . S'matter , 'fraid of the *light* Arthur Miller would get a kick out of this. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Paul Mitchell Date: 04 Sep 02 - 05:30 PM Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. Paul |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM I think we still agree, but are talking about many different things here. One, (I can't speak for Wolfgang...and won't...but...) the explanation directed to BWL was simply that, one explanation, with a lot of roooooom in the numbers. Two, if you were to attempt a meaningful study of people and planes, you would have to somehow take into account other factors such as proximity to the event, possibly an estimation of unknown events, some kind of weighting of the importance of these factors...and even then your "conclusions" would only be meaningful in an appropriate arena with everyone using the same vocabulary. I don't think this is what the original discussion was. I'm reminded of the attempts to quantify economic laws. You can get some pretty wild conclusions when you try to oversimplify a complex situation and talk about it in the press. But there is nevertheless value in making a model, studying it and trying to understand things. Three, oops...gotta go. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 03:18 PM Oh, I concur that Wolfgang's analysis-by-numbers is sharp as hell. I am not sure why we would assume anyone should have a dream about a jet crashing into a building particularly -- I don't know anyone who related one to me before July 2001. I know several people who had and related them betweene July and September. Not even counting that lieutenant of Osama's who claimed to have had one although he wasn't in on the top secret plan. So his statistical analysis has a premise in it which is set up to prove its own worth, not that he insists on the premise. Even if there were a distribution of people having such dreams evenly distributed across space and time, I would think that the number of incidences related to a given event would be more significant the closer to the event, because the time-thread including the event was becoming more and more probable. I'd actually expect that such dream-counts would go up before the actual event in a significant pattern, if all the incidents were known. But it is impossible for all the incidents to be known, since very large numbers of people don't have clear memory across the dream/real state boundary and couldn't say if they'd had such a dream or not. Let alone the questions of whether there are different kinds of communications, experiences, extrapolations, and such going on in dreaming states. It is pretty much wholly terra incognita, I think. So I think the picture Wolfgang paints, while very sharp mathematically, lacks real meaning. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Sep 02 - 03:02 PM Amos, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot superimpose objectivity on quality, (didn't Pirsig allude to the fact that we can go crazy doing this?), but I don't think the above discussion (number of people having dreams) is an incidence of quantifying a quality. Now if we were quatifying the substance/content of the dreams... "I rate this one a 10..." (Even in cases where this is used as a tool, the investigators (or people involved) understand the ground rules.) It's when we try to communicate (one of your favorite concepts *G*) and we don't all agree on the meanings of the words we use... (I'm still waiting for a song on this one.) |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:17 PM Taliesn may well be out of his league, Mary; but he is pointing to a very strong point. Counting and statistics depend for their validity on certain mechanisms of space and time which make repeatability of mechanical processes workable and countable. Quality of and in itself is not countable, although you can dream up ways to attach metrics to it indirectly. If you put six apples in a bag it is easy to say they are six, but in doing so you are roundly ignoring the myriad differences between them, since they come from diferent places, have differences in hue and shape and flavor and chemistry. You have to ignore the distinctions in order to count the "samenesses", and you are also relying on the time-space mechanisms of separation, unidirectionality, spatial continuity and homogeneity, and so on. There is no guarantee that consciousness itself operates within those mechanisms and constraints. Imagination certainly does not, and there is some experimental indication that time-reversal is much more normal in the realm of consciousness and its effects on material systems, than it is in any material system. If, on the other hand, you assume as your initial premise that consciousness is a byproduct of complexity in material systems only, the "thought is all in the brain" school of thought, whose loudest proponents are people like B.F. Skinner, the father of stimulus-response psychology, and Francis Crick, then the whole debate is meaningless and the meatheads carry the day based on that premise. But personally, I think it is a dangerous premise riddled with inconsistencies. A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Catherine Jayne Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:14 PM I agree with Katlaughing. If someone believes that they are psychic let them believe. They do not deserve to be put down and slagged off about it. In an ideal world people would respect each other's belief's. But as you can see from this thread it is not an ideal world and ot everyone respects others beleifs. Cat |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:10 PM Ho-hum. It is still unfortunate that we have these discussions, yet they can never really be open to full discussion of what people who believe have experienced, without being bullied and told how stupid they are. Is it at all possible for one group to let the other group alone and just let them compare notes? I know, I know...don't tell me...I can *see* that it will never come to pass. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:03 PM Well of course, it's probably fair to assume that, following September 11, the number of Americans and others who will now in the course of their lifetimes have had dreams about aeroplanes crashing into skyscrapers will have risen considerably. I don't know what that would do to Wolfgang's statistics.
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:35 AM Same name, (very) different persons, Ringer. Schmidt (and also Jahn) made quite ingenious experiments on PK (psychokinesis). The details differed from experiment to experiment, but mostly their subjects sat in front of a display and 'willed' the lamps to go clockwise/counterclockwise. They had novel features which made these experiments immune to several lines of critique applicable to older experiments: - the randomiser was based on radioactive decay (that's where radioactivity came into it): such a randomiser is better than random number tables or randomiser used in cumputers for those are not truly random but only random for some tests of randomness - the counting procedure was (as all of the experiment) computer controlled without any interference by humans: No (easy) bias in evaluation possible - They ran clever control experiments like e.g. letting the apparatus run all night without a human trying to influence it before it: that excludes a 'drift' in the apparatus (nothing as bad as a subject 'willing' the lights to turn clockwise when the apparatus has a clockwise drift/bias) as explanation. For the same reason they had the subjects 'willing' a clockwise movement just as often as a counterclockwise. Everybody I have read (or heard) believes the researchers to be completely honest. None of the usual counterexplanations that come easily to mind (bias in evaluation, trickery by subjects, wrong randomisation) holds here. Well, one of them could be true, in principle, but the researchers have taken all precautions against so it is not very probable. There are some minor technical points that could hint to a normal explanation, but none of them has been convincing to me. The main problem mainstream scientists have with the results is the tiny effect size. Jahn has reported a hit rate of 50.2 % (50.0 being chance) across experiments. That's highly significant with milions of trials, but it actually means that there is one extra clockwise movement among 500 trials. For me personally, the most probable explanation here is some not yet detected error. For such a small extra-chance effect, even a very minor error suffices. It is not chance operating here, so much is sure. One camp, you may guess which, thinks the paranormal explanation is the only left, the other camp bets on a yet not detected minor flaw. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Lyle Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:31 AM Normally, (and that includes up to now) I stay far away from discussions of this type. But I do have one comment. Wolfgang, thanks for trying to bring some sense to this whole affair. You are, of course, completely correct. But I don't think I'd have your courage to try to bring truth to this group, because you'll always run into people like Taliesn (and others) who are simply too ignorant to understand. Anyway, my compliments to you, Wolfgang!! Keep up the good work. Lyle PS Maybe we should send some of the "lesser lights" a subscription to The Skeptical Inquirer!!" |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM Danged, didn't realize I was gonna need my Wes Ginny slide rule at this party.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM Uh oh, GUEST, Taliesn, you're outta your league. Ringer, here's a seat by me, want some popcorn? |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 04 Sep 02 - 10:06 AM Helmut Schmidt is the name of the experimenter famous for conducting these experiments. I'm going to look up some balanced views of his work, if nobody beats me to it. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Ringer Date: 04 Sep 02 - 09:50 AM 3) The HELMUT SCHMIDT effect.... experiment with nine lights in a circle showed that people could force the lamps to light in a clockwise sequence, an example of psycho-kinesis or P.K. (from up above) I'm being lazy here: rather than doing my own Google search I want to know about this, and would like Wolfgang's (whose opinions in this area I trust - mainly, I suspect, because I share them (but, I regret, not his scholarship)) take on it. At the moment, if it's based on radioactive decay, I don't believe it. And why the H/S effect? Wasn't he German Chancellor 2 or 3 ago? |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:56 AM There is some evidence that those who believe in paranormal phenomena are also more likely to have pooer understanding of coincidences and random events. The famous experiment is one where subjects are asked to generate a pseudo random string of numbers - as if they were tossing a die, 100 hundred times in a row. Those with paranormal beliefs are more likely to produce a string which is non random in particulr ways. They have fewer than expected "co-incidence" substrings, eg 2two sixes occurring consecutively, or 1 followed by 2 followed by 3. This suggests that part of the reason for paranormal beliefs may be that people misunderstand how likely an event to occur by chance, so that when they see a number of co-incidences, they believe that there must be something behind it and it can't be down to chance. Bagpuss |
|
Subject: RE: C'mon Wolfgang From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:56 AM (quote) "Therefore, even with several thousand of such dreams there would still be no need for any other explanation than simple statistical coincidence. " What an amusing statistician's fantasy equation. I just love all of these "what if this were so because of this number and , thus, this means that" .*Spseculative* equations , at best , of a statistically-minded *imagination*. Trying to quantify the qualitative is like trying to explain the French in Chinese. If it can't be quantified ,it becomes incomprehensible. How much of quantum mechanics is *probability* mapping? Nice try ,Wolfgang , but you hit a dry hole. Which calls to mind the wise saying : "The map is *not* the territory" |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Date: 04 Sep 02 - 07:40 AM BWL, just to give you an idea, how many dreams there must have been not to call it coincidence: There are very roughly 250,000,000 US-Americans. Assume that each of them only once per life dreams about a plane crashing into a building. Assume that the average American lives 25,000 days (roughly 69 years) to make it easier. Then per chance alone, each night about 10,000 Americans have a dream about a plane crashing into a building. Well, some may never have such a dream (that would make my 10,000 estimation too high), but a dream of that type a couple of day before it happened would still be called a coincidence (that would make my 10,000 estimation too low). Whatever the correct number is, it is in the region of several thousands. Therefore, even with several thousand of such dreams there would still be no need for any other explanation than simple statistical coincidence. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Hey, Rev Bobert From: GUEST,Taliesn Date: 04 Sep 02 - 02:56 AM (quote) "Taliesn: One heck of a party ya' got ragin' here, my friend. Heck, if I knew you were throwin' it, I'd a shown earlier, brought my reso and done my famous " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" for the folks. " Was wondering when y'all would weigh in here. I originally meant this thread with half a mind for folks to join in and contribute ideas for lines for a semi-humorous song along the lines of the "Sign of the Times Blues", but y'all can see what happened. Talk about the law of unintended consequences ,but "spiritied" discussion is healthy nonetheless. I *love* the idea of " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" . Kinda comes under a varaition of the time-worn phrase " there oughta be a law " otherwise known as "there oughta be a song". Anyway glad you came. A "lively" thread just ain't quite the same without a visit from the Right Rev Bobert. Much oblidged Rev. |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Date: 04 Sep 02 - 12:55 AM Oh, CLinton, stop it!! You're such a Mugwump!! Bite your tongue!! A |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:18 PM psychics... ya right... And Doug Henning, when he ran for PM of Canada, was gonna defend our borders with "Squadrons of tantric flyers"
Talk New-Age all ya want May as well believe in ghosts and goblins, and wishing wells, and horoscopes... For that matter, while yer at it, mail me 2 dollars and I'll tall you the secret to EVERYTHING...
|
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Date: 03 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM Taliesn: One heck of a party ya' got ragin' here, my friend. Heck, if I knew you were throwin' it, I'd a shown earlier, brought my reso and done my famous " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" for the folks. But, hey, better late than never... Sorry about the litter gettin' scratched on ya' but, afterall, it is the Catbox, afterall... Oh, and about the psychics. They're all workin' for the tabloids these days. More money and paid vacations... The Ornery Reverand Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 03 Sep 02 - 09:39 PM My personal attitude toward things psychic is one of open-minded skepticism. Having said that, here's a true story: About a week before last September 11, a close friend had a dream in which a jetliner crashed into a skyscraper. The dream was disturbing enough to him that he told his wife about it, something he claims to rarely do, and she has verified to me that such a dream did occur and that it occurred several days before 09/11/01. My friend is a physicist and is as skeptical about psychic phemomena as I am. He makes no claim that his dream was precognitive, nor do I. Yet, it makes one wonder if his dream was an isolated instance, or if there are thousands of other people who may have had similar dreams during the same time period. A handful of such dreams could be accounted for by coincidence - it's hard to imagine anything so bizarre that it has not occurred in somebody's dream. Thousands of people having similar dreams, though, speaks of something outside of coincidence. BWL |
| Share Thread: |