Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 07-17-2002, 03:43 PM

<a href="http://www.peterpopoff.org/" target="_blank">Peter Popoff Ministries.</a>

An <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tongues-popoff-39-17Mhz.htm" target="_blank">account</a> of his debunking from a Christian website.

Veil of Fire · 07-17-2002, 03:55 PM

Corwin: Relying on other people to back you up again, I see.

Does any of that post have anything to do with actual discussion of the topic?

But you call ME the troll. Hypocrite.

Mageth: So you're saying II isn't particularly newbie-friendly. If I wasn't here to see the original debate, I don't get the liberty to ask for supporting documentation?

I still don't see why Shea and Corwin treated me like some kind of criminal when I asked for their reasoning.

Mageth · 07-17-2002, 04:11 PM

The first page of the pet psychic thread (and subsequent pages) was full of Corwin's reasoning.

LadyShea posted her reasoning in one or more of the other threads that spun off from that one.

Early in the thread, IMO, you escalated the tone of the discussion with comments such as "your rabid disbelief."

(note: I'm not defending anyone else's comments to you - some of those were over the top as well).

Mageth · 07-17-2002, 04:14 PM

Mageth: So you're saying II isn't particularly newbie-friendly. If I wasn't here to see the original debate, I don't get the liberty to ask for supporting documentation?

Any "newbie" who comes here and posts incredible theories can expect at least a little derision. This might not always be appropriate, but it's the way it is.

Many, however, do attempt to make rational arguments. As Corwin and others were doing on the Pet Psychic thread.

Veil of Fire · 07-17-2002, 04:45 PM

Mageth:
Corwin's post from the first page:

Quote:

Just from what I've seen of the commercials? She's a reasonably skilled and intuitive animal and human psychologist. (Amateur.) She's basically doing what stage mentalists call a 'cold reading,' mostly of the owner. The fact that she's supposedly interpeting for a pet adds some complexity to the reading, so she probably has at least a vague understanding of animal psychology, at least for major species. (For example, understanding the concept that a dog and a wolf are NOT the same thing... physically or mentally...)

She's no more supernatrual than John Edwards.... although I will say that since she isn't just cold reading about dead relatives to a human, what she has to do is somewhat more difficult.

He's a hack con artist. If she wasn't conning her listeners I'd probably call her a skilled stage magician and intuitive psychologist. As it is, however....

That's not reasoning, it's 100% opinion. There's nothing in there I can base a conclusion from, unless I considered Corwin to be an authority on the subject.

echidna · 07-17-2002, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Veil of Fire:
<strong>That's not reasoning, it's 100% opinion. There's nothing in there I can base a conclusion from, unless I considered Corwin to be an authority on the subject.</strong>

VoF, for starters, do you accept that Corwin's explanation is a valid possibility ?

To my knowledge, Cold Reading objectively exists. (I have a friend who is an excellent proponent as a most entertaining form of amusement.)
To my knowledge, fraudulent people exist who have been shown to be using Cold Reading.

I see nothing to invalidate Corwin's proposal.

freemonkey · 07-17-2002, 08:20 PM

<a href="http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/index.html" target="_blank">The Art of Cold Reading</a>

<a href="http://www.randi.org/jr/031502.html" target="_blank">Cold Reading Techniques</a>

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: freemonkey ]</p>

Mageth · 07-18-2002, 06:42 AM

VoF, I assume that what I called "Corwin's reasoning" equates to Corwin's opinion.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-18-2002, 07:01 AM

Just wanted to share the following from Philo, Vol 3, no. 2:

Quote:

The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible. ... For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts."

-- Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism by Doctor Barbara Forrest

Corwin · 07-18-2002, 07:08 AM

Veil seems to have a bit of difficulty keeping posts straight.... oh well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2002, 03:43 PM	#11
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	<a href="http://www.peterpopoff.org/" target="_blank">Peter Popoff Ministries.</a> An <a href="http://www.bible.ca/tongues-popoff-39-17Mhz.htm" target="_blank">account</a> of his debunking from a Christian website.

07-17-2002, 03:55 PM	#12
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Corwin: Relying on other people to back you up again, I see. Does any of that post have anything to do with actual discussion of the topic? But you call ME the troll. Hypocrite. Mageth: So you're saying II isn't particularly newbie-friendly. If I wasn't here to see the original debate, I don't get the liberty to ask for supporting documentation? I still don't see why Shea and Corwin treated me like some kind of criminal when I asked for their reasoning.

07-17-2002, 04:11 PM	#13
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The first page of the pet psychic thread (and subsequent pages) was full of Corwin's reasoning. LadyShea posted her reasoning in one or more of the other threads that spun off from that one. Early in the thread, IMO, you escalated the tone of the discussion with comments such as "your rabid disbelief." (note: I'm not defending anyone else's comments to you - some of those were over the top as well).

07-17-2002, 04:14 PM	#14
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Mageth: So you're saying II isn't particularly newbie-friendly. If I wasn't here to see the original debate, I don't get the liberty to ask for supporting documentation? Any "newbie" who comes here and posts incredible theories can expect at least a little derision. This might not always be appropriate, but it's the way it is. Many, however, do attempt to make rational arguments. As Corwin and others were doing on the Pet Psychic thread.

07-17-2002, 08:20 PM	#17
freemonkey Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: hell if I know Posts: 2,306	<a href="http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/index.html" target="_blank">The Art of Cold Reading</a> <a href="http://www.randi.org/jr/031502.html" target="_blank">Cold Reading Techniques</a> [ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: freemonkey ]</p>

07-18-2002, 06:42 AM	#18
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	VoF, I assume that what I called "Corwin's reasoning" equates to Corwin's opinion.

07-18-2002, 07:08 AM	#20
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Veil seems to have a bit of difficulty keeping posts straight.... oh well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.