Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

reply to post by baruch60610


ows it going Cobber (correct response to gday mate)

Ok you just messed with my head, If I go back and Melbourne isnt there Im gonna blame you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by baruch60610


You make a good point.
I can see this statement having a valid place in science.
Where we're talking cold hard numbers.

This seems to be where we are haing the problem.
One person is simply trying to relate a storey and others are trying to hold them accountable to the scientific method.

reply to post by baruch60610

How do you figure that a Theist can disbelieve on one day, as long as he believes on another? Yet an Atheist must disbelieve all the time?? Can it not be that as a person learns and thinks, his opinion will change, as will his beliefs? What do you call the Theist on Tuesday? He disbelieved on Monday; he's going to believe on Wednesday; so what is he on Tuesday? Similarly, an Atheist on Monday might encounter God on Wednesday, and become a believer. He is permitted to change his mind. Come to think of it, he might just hear a compelling argument that convinces him to believe.

Ah, thank you for addressing that! That was a metaphor (and perhaps a poor one).

A better way to state what I was trying to get at is that a believer in the supernatural is free to disbelieve in any miracle, or believe in any miracle. He may do so on the basis of the evidence available, or on the basis of a dogma, but there is nothing in theistic belief that requires a believer to admit every claim of miracle. There IS something inherent in materialist dogmatism that forbids the belief in ANY miracle.

The point of the metaphor is that materialism is more dogmatic than mysticism, and the main argument for that assertion is flushed out in the rest of my original post.

BTW - what is a "dialectic phenomenon"? I'm not familiar with that term.

"The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments." 1

Though in this instance I was using the word 'dialectic' in the Hegelian/Marxist sense. In essence I was asserting that belief is not an evolutionary or revolutionary product -- it does not come about as a result of conflict and synthesis.

Die-hard skeptics are very closed minded and because of this they refuse to believe anything. I was asked to move an object with my mind, I said well -- right now I can only do small things, we can do a psiwheel. They weren't impressed and said it was just a draft. I made the paper bigger, like full-sheet size bigger. Did nothing with it and then said I'll spin it around and it went around very fast and I would have decent control over it. He still wasn't impressed.

I decided to move a ping pong ball, which takes a lot of effort since I don't practice often. He smirked when he saw it move around but thought that it was an illusion. I moved it from another room and he still wanted more proof... So I moved a can of soda, empty and on its side. It barely moved but it would and he wasn't content so I asked him to stand still and I gave him as big of a headache as I could and made him tingle all over and his hands were twitching. He was very upset to say the least and was still convinced these were all tricks.

But those with an open mind are impressed and I teach those around me that find interest in it. I don't know what exactly the human limitation is if there's any but at the very least it could win you a bet at the bar lol But I suppose moving objects and giving people headaches isn't exactly that exciting for most of you on here, in fact if you're into this kind of stuff you and have been doing it for a while, you can probably do this and then some.

My point is, scientific reasoning is important but so is being open minded. If you block out everything, you'll never get anywhere.

reply to post by Em2013


In all fairness, that you used a 'trick' of some kind is more plausible than that you are actually capable of telekinesis, so I can understand that person's hesitation.

Now, I disagree with the notion of holding claims to different standards of proof based on the nature of the claim, but surely you can recognize that the demonstrations you offered are insufficient even as proof of a physical or otherwise natural process.


The human element (effort and practice) that make your alleged gift a 'skill' rather than a dumb or blind process is at the heart of the dilemma.

My suggestion to you would be to continue practicing until your level of ability is such that the effects can be reproduced on demand in a controlled environment. If you are never capable of reaching that point, I suggest two possibilities:

1) You do not in fact have this power and are relying on confirmation bias

OR

2) This power does in fact exist, but you have not developed it to a level sufficient to demonstrate proof of the phenomenon.

Both are possible, but the first is more likely.

Keep practicing. I understand James Randi has a cool million dollars waiting for you if you keep it up.

reply to post by RedBird


Sorry but I have very good control over what I can move, I'm only getting better with the bigger things to move. But it's a process however for now I'm taking a step back and analyzing the whole situation to how I could make better progress. James Randi is a fraud and will dismiss any legitimate proof you throw at him and if you go there with the media he throws you out and if you even mention anything about the media getting involved he doesn't reply to your emails. There are so many negative things about this guy, do some research.

I'm not the only one that can do this, there are many others in my circle that can do things like I can and I've met many that can also do these things that were just passing by folks. There's a lot of things that you may not know about what happens outside of "normality" but I assure you that if you think that everything can be scientifically analyzed immediately, think again. We're pretty primitive with our sciences and yet hundreds of Universities have concluded that "psi" is real where thousands of experiments have also concluded this. Anyways, my point is no matter what amount of proof you can provide, there will always be those that will think it's a trick of some sort. It's quite obvious when you move a ping pong ball in a figure 8 or any letter they request that it's telekinesis but for some it's just not enough.

Oh and when a random stranger passes by you and stops you and says "You can use your energy?" when you're doing groceries or just taking a walk, there's something to be said. Sensing is also a very real thing. I suppose if you want to give it a try, start practicing and see where you go.