The End Of Infidelity: A Reply To The End Of Christianity

[Rational Gaze]

I've responded to plenty.

Hasty generalisation aren't arguments.

I didn't actually cite anything. What I did was call him on not mentioning her being a well known fraud.

As I said, hasty generalisation isn't a valid argument. Especially when your only source is Google and Wikipedia.

Regarding checking sources, its his job as the guy proposing stuff to support it. Not my job to go find stuff to support his arguments.

He has sourced his arguments and cited his sources in his e-book. You're just too lazy to check it out.

We had more indepth discussion threads, but he has slowly, but surely, stopped responding to the ones talking about the book, choosing to focus on why I won't dig up information to support his claims instead of him digging up information to support his claims.

Isn't that the standard on Tweb? The person making a claim provides the supporting information? Only then does the other person, me, need to worry about providing counter arguments, counter information or whatnot.

The information is there, you're just ignoring it and choosing not to address any of it. It is neither mine nor Jason's responsibility to make your arguments for you.

If you aren't convinced then you aren't convinced.

If I'm not convinced and not unconvinced then it still means I am neither and it still means you are misrepresenting my position.

[JasonTE]

Jaecp wrote:

"Not my job to go find stuff to support his arguments."

That's a misleadingly ambiguous comment. There's a significant difference between asking people to find sources I'm unaware of that support my position and telling people where to find such sources that I'm familiar with. I did the latter, and you've repeatedly refused to consult those sources I cited. I doubt you'd take the same approach toward one of your college classes or a book written by an atheist. If your professor tells you to read a book outside of class, or an atheist author cites an article in a scientific journal as evidence of something he says, I doubt that you refuse to do any reading outside of your class or dismiss the atheist's citation and object that he didn't reproduce the article in his book.

[JasonTE]

Jaecp wrote:

"Ever seen before and after shots of baseball players like Mcgwire or Bonds? The differences can be startling. Not to mention the simple fact that all of us have some level of athletic skill. The two of us could grab a bat and ball and try to hit some homers, likely unsuccessfully. Steroids make that kind of things more likely. Same can't be said for magic."

Explain how that's relevant to what I said.

You write:

"Why would I focus on a new case when the old case hasn't been resolved?"

You're inconsistent. You've repeatedly asked for more recent cases and have ignored much of what I've said about the Palladino case. You kept complaining about how old the Palladino case is and you asked me for more recent cases, such as in post 18. Yet, now you act as though you're too focused on Palladino to discuss other cases. Your posts are an irrational, self-contradictory mess.

[Jaecp]

"Why would I focus on a new case when the old case hasn't been resolved?"

You're inconsistent. You've repeatedly asked for more recent cases and have ignored much of what I've said about the Palladino case. You kept complaining about how old the Palladino case is and you asked me for more recent cases, such as in post 18. Yet, now you act as though you're too focused on Palladino to discuss other cases. Your posts are an irrational, self-contradictory mess.

More recent cases, indeed,

So why would I start into DD Home?

Jaecp wrote:

"Ever seen before and after shots of baseball players like Mcgwire or Bonds? The differences can be startling. Not to mention the simple fact that all of us have some level of athletic skill. The two of us could grab a bat and ball and try to hit some homers, likely unsuccessfully. Steroids make that kind of things more likely. Same can't be said for magic."

Explain how that's relevant to what I said.

Isn't it obvious? You were making a comparison regarding baseball. Not that a baseball analogy is a good one. Everyone has some level of aptitude, even if they just picked up the bat or ball the first time. The same can't be said for having magical powers.

Jaecp wrote:

"Not my job to go find stuff to support his arguments."

That's a misleadingly ambiguous comment. There's a significant difference between asking people to find sources I'm unaware of that support my position and telling people where to find such sources that I'm familiar with. I did the latter, and you've repeatedly refused to consult those sources I cited. I doubt you'd take the same approach toward one of your college classes or a book written by an atheist. If your professor tells you to read a book outside of class, or an atheist author cites an article in a scientific journal as evidence of something he says, I doubt that you refuse to do any reading outside of your class or dismiss the atheist's citation and object that he didn't reproduce the article in his book.

You are, as you have been, free to post information in the thread or to tell me where its at in your book.

For all the noise you made about me wasting time, you've spent multiple posts not providing information.

Hasty generalisation aren't arguments.

True that.

Would you like to find an example of me making one?

As I said, hasty generalisation isn't a valid argument. Especially when your only source is Google and Wikipedia.

Google and Wikipedia aren't connected to whether an argument has a logical fallacy.

Also, you know, I was correct in the thing I used google to find.

He has sourced his arguments and cited his sources in his e-book. You're just too lazy to check it out.

Lazy? Nah. What I'm doing is not doing his work for him. He has pointed me to various page of his book, only page 16/17 iirc, and I read those. I've been telling him over and over that all he needs to do is link me to other stuff to read and that he should post the relevant parts here. Isn't that what we here on TWeb do in these discussions? Find information, post it into the thread, argue over it?

The information is there, you're just ignoring it and choosing not to address any of it. It is neither mine nor Jason's responsibility to make your arguments for you.

What argument have I made? That she was caught cheating, that we all agree on, and that sometimes they didn't catch her.

So either she had magical powers or she managed to cheat without being detected.

Which of those do you think is more probable?

If I'm not convinced and not unconvinced then it still means I am neither and it still means you are misrepresenting my position.

If you want to say you are still weighing the evidence, thats fine, but the fact remains that you remain unconvinced.

[JasonTE]

Jaecp wrote:

"More recent cases, indeed, So why would I start into DD Home?"

Here's what you wrote in post 120:

"Why would I focus on a new case when the old case hasn't been resolved?"

Yet, now you're distinguishing between an older case, like Home's, and newer cases. Now you tell us that you'd discuss newer cases, but not another older case. Supposedly, the only older case you can discuss is Palladino's. But if you're willing to discuss other older cases, once the first older case is resolved, then the issue can't be an unwillingness to discuss older cases. Rather, it must be a matter of how much time you have to discuss these matters or some other factor. But if that's the case, then why would you be willing to discuss more recent cases now, but not Home's case? You're not making sense.

Why even make such a distinction between older and newer cases to begin with? Distinctions can be made, such as the availability of video footage today, but not to the extent that older cases should be dismissed because of their oldness. Historians reach many millions of conclusions about the past, including timeframes far earlier than the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea that the Home and Palladino cases are too old is ridiculous.

Besides, I've mentioned newer cases and have cited sources on them, yet you've repeatedly ignored what I've cited and have even claimed that newer cases were never brought up.

And how focused have you been on the Palladino case? You haven't even attempted an explanation of how she would have cheated during the seances I cited. In post 73, you asked for more information about the controls involved during the seances. In post 78, I provided an answer. You still haven't interacted with the details I provided.

Your treatment of the Palladino case is absurd, and your professed reasons for not addressing other cases are likewise absurd and inconsistent.

You write:

"Everyone has some level of aptitude, even if they just picked up the bat or ball the first time."

Again, explain how that's relevant to what I said.

And explain how defining "athlete" in a way that includes "everyone" is relevant to the context I was addressing. I was using the term to refer to a group with abilities beyond what everybody has. Using a different definition, which includes everybody, doesn't address what I was discussing.

You write:

"You are, as you have been, free to post information in the thread or to tell me where its at in your book."

Earlier, you said that I have to post it here. Now you say it can also be in my e-book, apparently meaning the second of the two e-books responding to Loftus' books. But if you can go outside this thread to an e-book, then why can you not go outside to other sources? Why did you refuse to look up what I had cited about James Randi in my previous e-book, for example?

Later in your same post I'm responding to now, you write:

"I've been telling him over and over that all he needs to do is link me to other stuff to read and that he should post the relevant parts here. Isn't that what we here on TWeb do in these discussions? Find information, post it into the thread, argue over it?"

If you're expecting me to "post it in the thread", then why did you say, several sentences earlier, that I could post the material here "or tell [you] where its at in [my] book"? You used the word "or", as if you were referring to an alternative. But if you don't want to go outside this thread, why would you ask for citations of a book outside the thread?

We've already accommodated you to some extent by posting material on Palladino and Home in this thread. You've ignored much of it and responded irrationally to the portions you've interacted with. When we cite sources outside this thread, including online material that's free and easy to access, you often refuse to consult it.

I'm posting here primarily for the benefit of other people, not you. I think what I've cited already is sufficient for people who are more reasonable than you are.

[JasonTE]

Jaecp wrote:

"So either she had magical powers or she managed to cheat without being detected. Which of those do you think is more probable?"

The answer depends on the details involved, like the ones I discussed in post 78. And you keep ignoring those details.

If you're going to argue that Palladino cheated in ways that surpass our knowledge of human abilities to cheat, then are you claiming that she had paranormal cheating capabilities? If so, then you're acknowledging some form of paranormal ability. Calling the paranormal abilities cheating doesn't change the fact that the abilities are paranormal. And what would be your justification for calling what she did cheating? It can't be the fact that she cheated on other occasions, for reasons we've explained in previous posts.

If you're saying, on the other hand, that she cheated through normal human abilities, then explain how she could have cheated with those abilities under the circumstances in question, then explain how such a possibility is probable in Palladino's case. If you can't show that such cheating is possible or probable, or you can show that it's possible while being unable to show that it's probable, then why are we supposed to believe that she probably cheated?

[Rational Gaze]

True that.

Would you like to find an example of me making one?

I have already noted how. Jason has pointed to a group of cases and is arguing that these are genuine examples of paranormal activity. Your sole response is to point to a bunch of other example and say, well these cases here were fraudulent, so yours are too. You haven't even looked his sources!

Lazy? Nah. What I'm doing is not doing his work for him. He has pointed me to various page of his book, only page 16/17 iirc, and I read those. I've been telling him over and over that all he needs to do is link me to other stuff to read and that he should post the relevant parts here. Isn't that what we here on TWeb do in these discussions? Find information, post it into the thread, argue over it?

Jason has done his work. You're not doing yours. Simply making excuses for your own ineptitude and laziness does not change that.

So either she had magical powers or she managed to cheat without being detected.

Which of those do you think is more probable?

I don't know, since I have yet to review the evidence.

If you want to say you are still weighing the evidence, thats fine, but the fact remains that you remain unconvinced.

What part about "I haven't decided yet" is so hard to understand? I have not been unconvinced, nor have I been convinced. Simply repeatedly misrepresenting my position doesn't change that.

[lao tzu]

First of all, I don't deny that the cheating should be taken into account and that it adds weight to your position. But I was addressing other factors, like Palladino's education and knowledge of magic. To judge how the cheating weighs against the other factors involved, we need to first get a handle on the significance of those other factors.

Jason, a quick survey of colleges will reveal there are no formal degrees in con-artistry. There are no Hucksterism 101 courses currently available. More relevant to the fraud in question, there are no colloquia on how to build a shoe that allows you to remove your foot and put it under the leg of a table to make it appear to levitate. But it's clear she managed to do so, while fooling early observers well enough to make a reputation for herself.

Uri Geller managed to fool millions, too, until Randi coached Carson on how to nail Geller on national television. Sometimes it takes a while to penetrate the frauds, but once it's been done, only the the ostriches with heads up their sandpiles fail to notice it.

Don't be an ostrich.

Next you'll be claiming people rise from the dead.

[Rational Gaze]

Well, at least lao tzu has the decency not to pretend he is trying to make an argument and just straight up trolls.

[Jaecp]

aecp wrote:

"More recent cases, indeed, So why would I start into DD Home?"

Here's what you wrote in post 120:

"Why would I focus on a new case when the old case hasn't been resolved?"

Yet, now you're distinguishing between an older case, like Home's, and newer cases. Now you tell us that you'd discuss newer cases, but not another older case. Supposedly, the only older case you can discuss is Palladino's. But if you're willing to discuss other older cases, once the first older case is resolved, then the issue can't be an unwillingness to discuss older cases. Rather, it must be a matter of how much time you have to discuss these matters or some other factor. But if that's the case, then why would you be willing to discuss more recent cases now, but not Home's case? You're not making sense.

Why even make such a distinction between older and newer cases to begin with? Distinctions can be made, such as the availability of video footage today, but not to the extent that older cases should be dismissed because of their oldness. Historians reach many millions of conclusions about the past, including timeframes far earlier than the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The idea that the Home and Palladino cases are too old is ridiculous.

Besides, I've mentioned newer cases and have cited sources on them, yet you've repeatedly ignored what I've cited and have even claimed that newer cases were never brought up.

And how focused have you been on the Palladino case? You haven't even attempted an explanation of how she would have cheated during the seances I cited. In post 73, you asked for more information about the controls involved during the seances. In post 78, I provided an answer. You still haven't interacted with the details I provided.

Your treatment of the Palladino case is absurd, and your professed reasons for not addressing other cases are likewise absurd and inconsistent.

Not at all,

I made mention of asking if you had more recent cases, living people even, about when her being a known cheat first surfaced. DD Home, quite obviously as he is an older case, doesn't fit this criteria. As to discussing one case at a time, why would I discuss two at a time? Isn't one authentic example of the supernatural enough for your purpose here?

Historians do figure stuff out about very old things. Got any mainstream ones that think you can prove the supernatural based upon the evidence of Eusa or Home?

Anyway, I'll say again, if you actually want to discuss evidence, post it already. How many times will you not do this before getting bored?

"Everyone has some level of aptitude, even if they just picked up the bat or ball the first time."

Again, explain how that's relevant to what I said.

And explain how defining "athlete" in a way that includes "everyone" is relevant to the context I was addressing. I was using the term to refer to a group with abilities beyond what everybody has. Using a different definition, which includes everybody, doesn't address what I was discussing.

Well... uhh... everyone does have some level of athletic ability at baseball. Its a gradient. A spectrum.

The same can't be said for magic powers...

We have tons of examples of people getting to the upper levels of skill at baseball legitimately and then resorting to cheating to push them over the edge.

We do not have tons of examples of people having low levels of magical ability and then cheating to turn it up a notice. What we do have is tons of examples of people with no magical ability cheating to make it look like they do. Not sure how better to explain this.

You write:

"You are, as you have been, free to post information in the thread or to tell me where its at in your book."

Earlier, you said that I have to post it here. Now you say it can also be in my e-book, apparently meaning the second of the two e-books responding to Loftus' books. But if you can go outside this thread to an e-book, then why can you not go outside to other sources? Why did you refuse to look up what I had cited about James Randi in my previous e-book, for example?

Heh, I knew it.

You're more concerned with keeping up appearances and looking for semantic errors than actually going forward in the discussion.

"I've been telling him over and over that all he needs to do is link me to other stuff to read and that he should post the relevant parts here. Isn't that what we here on TWeb do in these discussions? Find information, post it into the thread, argue over it?"

If you're expecting me to "post it in the thread", then why did you say, several sentences earlier, that I could post the material here "or tell [you] where its at in [my] book"? You used the word "or", as if you were referring to an alternative. But if you don't want to go outside this thread, why would you ask for citations of a book outside the thread?

We've already accommodated you to some extent by posting material on Palladino and Home in this thread. You've ignored much of it and responded irrationally to the portions you've interacted with. When we cite sources outside this thread, including online material that's free and easy to access, you often refuse to consult it.

I'm posting here primarily for the benefit of other people, not you. I think what I've cited already is sufficient for people who are more reasonable than you are.

Really?

Is there anyone who here who actually believes mediums have magical powers besides, presumably, you?

Jaecp wrote:

"So either she had magical powers or she managed to cheat without being detected. Which of those do you think is more probable?"

The answer depends on the details involved, like the ones I discussed in post 78. And you keep ignoring those details.

If you're going to argue that Palladino cheated in ways that surpass our knowledge of human abilities to cheat, then are you claiming that she had paranormal cheating capabilities? If so, then you're acknowledging some form of paranormal ability. Calling the paranormal abilities cheating doesn't change the fact that the abilities are paranormal. And what would be your justification for calling what she did cheating? It can't be the fact that she cheated on other occasions, for reasons we've explained in previous posts.

If you're saying, on the other hand, that she cheated through normal human abilities, then explain how she could have cheated with those abilities under the circumstances in question, then explain how such a possibility is probable in Palladino's case. If you can't show that such cheating is possible or probable, or you can show that it's possible while being unable to show that it's probable, then why are we supposed to believe that she probably cheated?

Page 49-51 is about Abraham, unless you meant one of your other books.

And no, I'm not claiming that she cheated with paranormal abilities. How does that make any sense? I'm saying I think she cheated and wasn't caught.

Do you have a detailed report by those fellows about what happened that night? I'm sure thats what they planned to have as their control, but, as I'm sure your aware, mediums have been known to cheat. Had you actually provided direct info, instead of your unsupported summary, I probably would have responded to it then.

I did manage to find a book written 2 years after your incident where Fielding retested her along with William Marriot. The link should take you to page 57 and its one of those old books scanned in or I'd quote the parts where it says, basically, that a couple of years later they retested her while trying to replicate the conditions of the 2008 seance and she failed, badly. Something about there being a problem in fieldings 1908 notes, but without access to volume 23 I don't know how I'd verify that.

Anyway, that 1910 repeat of the séance, with those people insuring the rigor of the initial controls ended in her failing. I don't know what the problems were supposed to have been in 1908, but it prompted a second investigation. What seems to me the most likely thing was that the controls that were intended to be rigorous ended up either not being rigorous enough, hoping to eliminate all possibility of fraud is not the same thing as eliminating all possibility of fraud. However, I think it more likely that the controls were simply not adhered to as strongly and then, when the experiment repeated and the controls were, she was unable to do her thing.

Do you have the actual text from The Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research volume 23, the that contained the actual report? It seems to be rather hard to find. Almost every other volume is available here while 23 is not :( I'd love to know, specifically, what the failings were of Fieldings 1908 notes that had him pressured into repeating the experiment. Do you know? It's mentioned all over the net, but there aren't specifics :-/

[Jaecp]

I have already noted how. Jason has pointed to a group of cases and is arguing that these are genuine examples of paranormal activity. Your sole response is to point to a bunch of other example and say, well these cases here were fraudulent, so yours are too. You haven't even looked his sources!

We aren't discussing a group of cases, we are discussing Eusapia Palladino. Check out page 57 onward, until you've read enough, of this that talks about how when they repeated the experiments and actually enforced the controls that were supposed to have strictly been in place the first time. They note how she tried to evade controls constantly. Word of that getting out in the 1908 seance is, most likely, what prompted the repeat of the test.

Also, you know, its a bit strange how we haven't had anybody in decades, since after Eusapia died really, that has without skeptical attention or, you know, Randi would be down a million bucks by now.

Jason has done his work. You're not doing yours. Simply making excuses for your own ineptitude and laziness does not change that.

Since you say "I don't know, since I have yet to review the evidence. " yet how could you possibly know that? Not that I'm being lazy. I meeting out as much effort as it takes. Forums posts don't get dissertations unless they warrant it.

What part about "I haven't decided yet" is so hard to understand? I have not been unconvinced, nor have I been convinced. Simply repeatedly misrepresenting my position doesn't change that.

Whiiiich means you haven't been convinced yet.

Sheesh

[Chrawnus]

Whiiiich means you haven't been convinced yet.

You know, it's disgustingly dishonest to try and twist the fact that RG simply hasn't made his mind up about to the evidence to imply that he finds it unconvincing, when he's said nothing of the sort.

I guess trolls will try whatever underhanded tricks they can to score points even if it has nothing to do with the actual debate at hand.

[Jaecp]

You know, it's disgustingly dishonest to try and twist the fact that RG simply hasn't made his mind up about to the evidence to imply that he finds it unconvincing, when he's said nothing of the sort.

I guess trolls will try whatever underhanded tricks they can to score points even if it has nothing to do with the actual debate at hand.

I never said he found it unconvincing. I said he hasn't been convinced. This. Is. True.

The amount of raw evidence provided has been roughly the same size as a page or 2 college essay, variance accounting for font and spacing, without much of anything in the way of jargon so mostly plainly understood english. It's been days, hasn't it? You believe RG to be a pretty smart fellow, don't you? How much time does he need? He's the 3rd most active poster in this thread, after all, and it isn't all that complicated.

What about you Chrawnus? Do you think Eusapia Palladino had supernatural powers? You've been following the thread to some extent. Is it more likely that a known fraud was a cheating, but not caught, or that she had magical powers but instead of chose to cheat? Thats the bare bones question.

[Rational Gaze]

We aren't discussing a group of cases, we are discussing Eusapia Palladino

The Palladino case is but one he appeals to (from what I gather) and, unless I am mistaken, Jason has referenced multiple studies. Either way, let us take just the Palladino case and let us further assume that there is only one study which purports to show Palladino's "powers" or whatever you want to call them are genuine, despite there being multiple controls. How does appealing to a totally different study determine the outcome or validity of the case Jason is referring to? It is simply a red herring, not to mention hasty generalisation since you keep inferring that the case Jason appeals to is invalid just because you have found ones that are invalid. That simply is not a valid argument. You need to take the case Jason has provided, and analysis it, not pick a totally different case and talk about that instead.

Since you say "I don't know, since I have yet to review the evidence. " yet how could you possibly know that?

He has written an e-book (along with Steve Hays, et al. of Triablogue. If his sources were deficient, then you would have simply pointed out. This you have not done. What you have done is complain that Jason has referenced a lot of sources that aren't immediately accessible to you. Jason has done his work, why won't you do yours?

Whiiiich means you haven't been convinced yet.

Sheesh

Nope, it means I am neither convinced nor unconvinced. Can you please stop deliberately misrepresenting my position please? It is getting tiresome.

[Chrawnus]

I never said he found it unconvincing. I said he hasn't been convinced. This. Is. True.

Actually, you implied something much more dishonest. Let me remind you of what you wrote earlier:

...and TP entered into the conversation of a tangent of a tangent with RG's, who wants desperately to make a case against skeptics but you haven’t given him much to work with because he isn’t convinced about your various mediums anymore than the rest of us are...

Thus implying that he finds the evidence just as unconvincing as you do. It's a textbook example of dishonestly trying to twist a situation to make it look favorable to your own position.

Don't try and BS your way out of this. Everyone with half a brain can see what kind of stunt you're trying to pull.

The amount of raw evidence provided has been roughly the same size as a page or 2 college essay, variance accounting for font and spacing, without much of anything in the way of jargon so mostly plainly understood english. It's been days, hasn't it? You believe RG to be a pretty smart fellow, don't you? How much time does he need? He's the 3rd most active poster in this thread, after all, and it isn't all that complicated.

If I've got it right JasonTE seems to have been going on and on about some kind of sources that you adamantly refuse to look up for God knows what reason. Maybe the evidence would fill up a couple of more pages if you weren't expecting everyone to hand it to you on a silver plate? Or atleast JasonTE wouldn't be nagging you about it.

What about you Chrawnus? Do you think Eusapia Palladino had supernatural powers? You've been following the thread to some extent. Is it more likely that a known fraud was a cheating, but not caught, or that she had magical powers but instead of chose to cheat? Thats the bare bones question.

To be honest I haven't even read the book yet. I simply decided to call you out on your underhanded tactics when I noticed what you were up to.

But if we're talking about evidence for the supernatural I have a feeling I would find NDE experiences that can be verified ( that is,not the tunnel of light, seeing dead relatives, visiting heaven/hell and seeing "God" kind of experiences, but the other kind) more convincing than spiritual mediums. But If what JasonTE has been saying about Palladino and the strict controls when testing her are true it seems it would atleast give some kind of support to the existence of the supernatural.