For the true disbelievers, nothing would ever be enough.

#1
I hear this hyperbolic claim made over and over again. Who are these "true disbelievers" anyway? Hopefully not a collection of straw men propped up for the sake of target practice. Is Shermer a true disbeliever? Dawkins? Dennett? French? Wiseman? The banned of seven? If so, how do you know that they could not be convinced? To just say that they have demonstrated a pattern of behavior is not enough. The claim is that nothing would ever be enough. I think that is incredibly unlikely.

It is quite easy to imagine any number of ways "true disbelievers" (whatever the hell that really means...I'm assuming it's synonymous with pseudo-skeptic) could be convinced. Reliably consistent (read reliably consistent) veridical information from OBE's, for one example, would do the trick for most. The ability to create technology that made use of psi effects would be another way. Even profound personal experiences would probably work with some of them...There are obviously many other ways.

I know that there are significant and real beefs that are justifiably leveled at the skeptical movement, and there are certainly many pseudo-skeptics out there doing their best to undermine any positive gains that the psi movement makes, but to say that they could not be convinced is, at best, pretty naive, and at worst, nothing more than hyperbolic bs. Perhaps some of our banned of seven could respond with what it would take for them to be convinced...

Cheers!
 
#2
IMO the term is both inaccurate and does a disservice to those who have moved beyond materialism. It plays into the notion that "true believers in materialism" are somehow less influenced by beliefs than are others.
 
#3
Reliably consistent veridical information This is foremost in my book. If PK is true doesn't mean ghosts are true and if ghosts are true doesn't mean non local consciousness is true. Each element would need reliably consistent veridical information to be accepted as true.
 
#5
I hear this hyperbolic claim made over and over again. Who are these "true disbelievers" anyway? Hopefully not a collection of straw men propped up for the sake of target practice. Is Shermer a true disbeliever? Dawkins? Dennett? French? Wiseman? The banned of seven? If so, how do you know that they could not be convinced? To just say that they have demonstrated a pattern of behavior is not enough. The claim is that nothing would ever be enough. I think that is incredibly unlikely.

It is quite easy to imagine any number of ways "true disbelievers" (whatever the hell that really means...I'm assuming it's synonymous with pseudo-skeptic) could be convinced. Reliably consistent (read reliably consistent) veridical information from OBE's, for one example, would do the trick for most. The ability to create technology that made use of psi effects would be another way. Even profound personal experiences would probably work with some of them...There are obviously many other ways.

I know that there are significant and real beefs that are justifiably leveled at the skeptical movement, and there are certainly many pseudo-skeptics out there doing their best to undermine any positive gains that the psi movement makes, but to say that they could not be convinced is, at best, pretty naive, and at worst, nothing more than hyperbolic bs. Perhaps some of our banned of seven could respond with what it would take for them to be convinced...

Cheers!
You're wrong.

When discussion was opened to the floor, Bharati rose and screaming and waving his hands in the air, said to Emerson “You’re either lying or cheating... I simply don’t believe you... it can’t happen... I don’t care what kind of evidence you’ve got.”

Bharati had now dismissed the work of both Eisenbud and Emerson, but it was the way in which he had done it that caught attention most. The contradiction between Bharati’s emotional outburst and his paper, which called for objective (etic) standards to be applied to any research involving parapsychology and anthropology, was not lost on the audience. One woman anthropologist in a stage whisper that could be heard by all nearby said to her companion, “How much more emic can you get than ‘I simply won’t believe it?’”
 
#7
Reliably consistent veridical information This is foremost in my book. If PK is true doesn't mean ghosts are true and if ghosts are true doesn't mean non local consciousness is true. Each element would need reliably consistent veridical information to be accepted as true.
If PK is true, then it would demonstrate that mind and matter are very closely related. The fully conscious mind sends a ripple through the continuum of proto conscious matter
 
#9
I'm not a true disbeliever, though I'm in the Banned of Seven.

I think I've been pretty clear over the years what I am looking for - information collected under conditions with decent reliability and validity, and experiments designed to test specific hypotheses relevant to psi. As a specific example - information collected prospectively under double-blind conditions about what people remember during medical crises which is veridical (specific and unavailable through sensory input), like Penny Sartori's study (but on a larger scale).

Linda
 
#10
Reliably consistent veridical information This is foremost in my book. If PK is true doesn't mean ghosts are true and if ghosts are true doesn't mean non local consciousness is true. Each element would need reliably consistent veridical information to be accepted as true.
I think we're all clear that you're a staunch materialist and believe that the methodologies appropriate to it are some sort of divine tools by which all knowledge can be gleaned.
 
#13
I think we're all clear that you're a staunch materialist and believe that the methodologies appropriate to it are some sort of divine tools by which all knowledge can be gleaned.
You say materialist like it's a perjorative while implying immaterialist is the superior philosophy. Both are two
philosophies among a multitude. Calling me a materialist is something I don't call myself. I don't subscribe to any philosophical position and I subscribe to all of them.

Once again. What does it mean to move beyond materialism? Now can you answer the question while avoiding a snarky remark?
 
#14
I'm not a true disbeliever, though I'm in the Banned of Seven.

I think I've been pretty clear over the years what I am looking for - information collected under conditions with decent reliability and validity, and experiments designed to test specific hypotheses relevant to psi. As a specific example - information collected prospectively under double-blind conditions about what people remember during medical crises which is veridical (specific and unavailable through sensory input), like Penny Sartori's study (but on a larger scale).

Linda
We should call the "banned of seven" the the damned of seven. No matter what we say we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
 
#16
It's trying to make sense of it, if it exists. If something about mind affects matter, than matter in some sense must have a commonality with mind. I'm thinking along the lines of neutral monism.
It seems to me many members approach psi from a particular philosophical perspective. I don't know why that's so. I never say to myself which philosophy.
 
#20
Yes, you have unequivocally stated that you believe psi is real. It should be changed to the Banned of Six.

Cheers,
Bill
Most (probably "all") of us have stated specifically that we aren't disbelievers. It's not Banned of Seven Disbelievers. It's more like Banned of Seven Doubters, under conditions where doubt is portrayed as obstinacy. I still belong.

Linda
 
Top