(2017-11-10, 01:59 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Survival is not proven of course, I never said it was although I personally accept it.
I don't think 'of course' would automatically fit here. It might be said that in some people's opinion it isn't proven, while in other's opinion it isn't even a question, as it is already considered impossible.
(2017-11-10, 04:39 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]You've illustrated my point precisely. Your mind is made up.
That's an odd thing to say. I accept psi, yes...in that there is definitely something going on, an "effect" beyond what is explainable by materialist science. I don't see how any reasonable person could argue against that without using plain "denial" which some do of course.
I experienced it for myself many times, so I "know" (for myself anyway). It would be dishonest of me to say anything else.
As for Berkelon being more open minded than me, why is he ? If he genuinely thinks that French is being reasonable then he's closed minded. Furthermore, what about you ? You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this a psi forum...isn't it ? Most of the people here accept psi....do you not ?
To clarify, I meant that I thought French - not berkelon - was more open-minded than the people at the extremes.
As for the rest of it, I'm not going to waste time arguing about it. I think it's self-evident that if someone's mind is definitely made up about something, then they're not open-minded about it - and I don't understand why they should want to be considered open-minded about it.
As for me, as I've said a number of times, I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle, with my inclinations varying according to what phenomenon we're talking about. And this is certainly not just a forum for proponents.
(2017-11-10, 04:56 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]To clarify, I meant that I thought French - not berkelon - was more open-minded than the people at the extremes.
As for the rest of it, I'm not going to waste time arguing about it. I think it's self-evident that if someone's mind is definitely made up about something, then they're not open-minded about it - and I don't understand why they should want to be considered open-minded about it.
As for me, as I've said a number of times, I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle, with my inclinations varying according to what phenomenon we're talking about. And this is certainly not just a forum for proponents.
"I think it's self-evident that if someone's mind is definitely made up about something, then they're not open-minded about it"
No they're not open minded now but presumably they
had an open mind about it until the evidence persuaded them that they could reach a reasonable conclusion. I'm open to plenty of things but for me, psi is real and no evidence ever emerges that I've got that wrong. I'm well aware that true sceptics don't draw conclusions but they should also be unbiased ...so I'll redirect you back to French's statement.
French > “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal … I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence”.
I don't call that open minded.
And this is certainly not just a forum for proponents.
When did I say it was ?
(2017-11-10, 05:28 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]When did I say it was [just a forum for proponents] ?
This bit of your post very much gave me that impression:
"
Furthermore, what about you ? You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this a psi forum...isn't it ? Most of the people here accept psi....do you not ?"
(2017-11-10, 05:56 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]You're welcome here as an intelligent and thoughtful poster but this (is) a psi forum.
Is that a provocative statement ? How does that imply that sceptics are not welcome ?
As I said, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this.
(2017-11-10, 06:03 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]As I said, I'm not going to waste any more time arguing about this.
That's fine. Do bear in mind that you started it, though. Do you not think my time is important too ?
I find myself in agreement with Irwin and Watt (French has also said he finds himself in "fairly full agreement" with the quote below):
"In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances of self-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature likewise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data. Be that as it may, there is sound phenomenological evidence of parapsychological experiences and experimental evidence of anomalous events too, and to this extent behavioral scientists ethically are obliged to encourage the investigation of these phenomena rather than dismissing them out of hand. If all of the phenomena do prove to be explicable within conventional principles of mainstream psychology surely that is something worth knowing ...; and if just one of the phenomena should be found to demand a revision or an expansion of contemporary psychological principles, how enriched behavioral science would be." (Irwin & Waytt, 2007, p. 260)
(2017-11-10, 06:37 PM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]I find myself in agreement with Irwin and Watt (French has also said he finds himself in "fairly full agreement" with the quote below):
"In the final analysis what fairly can be said of parapsychology? As far as spontaneous cases are concerned it seems likely that there are numerous instances of self-deception, delusion, and even fraud. Some of the empirical literature likewise might be attributable to shoddy experimental procedures and to fraudulent manipulation of data. Be that as it may, there is sound phenomenological evidence of parapsychological experiences and experimental evidence of anomalous events too, and to this extent behavioral scientists ethically are obliged to encourage the investigation of these phenomena rather than dismissing them out of hand. If all of the phenomena do prove to be explicable within conventional principles of mainstream psychology surely that is something worth knowing ...; and if just one of the phenomena should be found to demand a revision or an expansion of contemporary psychological principles, how enriched behavioral science would be." (Irwin & Waytt, 2007, p. 260)
Irwin and (Caroline) Watt ? Married to Richard Wiseman and author of "There's nothing paranormal about NDE's" Open mindedness at it's finest.
