Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/reports/401-500/404

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-19 | 19.2 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp.coast.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [e-mail] (Bruce Daniel Kettler)
Newsgroups: alt.ufo.reports
Subject: What is the SKEPTICULT? (2 of 3)
Date: 19 Jun 1996 08:54:41 GMT
Organization: TIFPC - The Internet Fax Psychic Connection
Lines: 456
Message-ID: <4q8f8h$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: den-co14-05.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 19  1:54:41 AM PDT 1996
X-Newsreader: OUI 1.3.0


PART 2 OF 3 PARTS    BEGIN

See copyright provisions at beginning of part 1.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

                Someone wrote:

Hey, I guess I'm a Psychic!!  I tried pulling a card at random from
a deck and guessing what it was. And it worked!!  Well, not every
time, only about 2% of the time, but it worked!! I did it!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++

Of course, that's just joking, but it's a joke based upon a lack of
knowledge.  It's typical that these so-called "skeptics" know very
little of what they are talking about.

This is one reason I write, In this document, that people should
not debate with those of this mentality.  If 80 percent (as shown
in a future paragraph) isn't good enough, isn't "pure" (orthodox)
science, then why show that you can prove 80 percent, when it's
been established by university experimentation over years that 20
percent (with less types of cards) is chance and so therefore 80
percent is quite significant.

If millions of dollars gained over a period of years by Uri Geller,
using psychic powers to find oil, only proves to these people that
the oil companies were gullible, why show how much money or where
it came from?

Bruce Daniel Kettler
[e-mail]

________________________________________________________ __________

                   Someone wrote:

We know that it is not science yet, so we now work in the realm of
the "statistically significant."

I don't think 2% is statistically significant, but if you could do
it say 80 % of the time...

________________________________________________________ ________

That's a good answer.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
[e-mail]
________________________________________________________ _________

science is 100%

[e-mail] (Daniel Albano)
________________________________________________________ _________

Damn! Well, there goes biology, physics, statistics, medicine,
psychology, psychiatry, sociology and, of course, the study of
chaos theory, out the window.  By your definition none of these
things are science.

You'd better not need emergency medical care! It doesn't work 100%
of the time.

Wizard --- [e-mail]

________________________________________________________ _________

                 and the reply came from:

          Robert Grossman <[e-mail]>

     I agree with the spirit of your refutation.  However, I
     don't know anyone other than a psychologist or
     sociologist that considers those fields to be sciences.

     Statistical significance and the predictions based on it
     are not science.

     Bob.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++

Well, I guess that lets nuclear physics out, too.  Point out any
physical science, any one at all, that does not measure statistical
significance in its experiments.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
________________________________________________________ _______

           FOLLOWING FROM BDK [e-mail]

"Statistical significance... are not science."

Well, by absolute definition, you are correct about orthodox
science, but not necessarily what is generally accepted, today, as
"science."  It is relevant that the type of thinking which
constantly goes back to exactness is that of "fundamentalism,"
which can be anything like Hindu, Islamic or Christian.

Also, I notice that the same people who adhere to this exactness
can generally be called "orthodox," and they nearly always see
things as either BLACK or WHITE, with no shades of grey.

Orthodox medicine is that way, in that fundamental ideas are held
as the *true* methods: chemotherapy, heart bypass surgery, etc.
These "high priests" condemn those with alternative methods as
"quacks."

Still, if you want "science" as you find it's most orthodox
definition is, science is very useful.  Certain parts of our
observable world, examined by science (with orthodoxy) are proven,
and there's little room for variation.

However, the so-called "skeptics" will find that once they look at
life with a broad perspective, they can redefine many things.
There's need to allow themselves the freedom to do so.  "Science"
doesn't have to be such a *rigidly* defined thing.

As one example of the change that has come about, regarding the
definition of science, there's the common terms "hard" and "soft."
Parapsychology is a "soft," science while physics is "hard."

There is an "orthodox" science, yet there is other science.  The
"orthodoxy" can continue to call the parapsychologists and
psychologists non-scientists and perhaps, in a way, heretics.
People, these days, are coming to look at this orthodox science as
a religion, indeed a fundamentalist religion.

Such a religion, for medicine, is no less fanatical than that of
the Inquisition, except that the legal methods of the American
Medical Association are more humane than was the physical torture
of the Inquisition.

There are those who *ARE* scientists who are not "orthodox" as
there are medical doctors who are unorthodox.  The medical
establishment, the AMA, has tried to stop the unorthodox medical
doctors legally, and it has, lately, proven to be a losing battle.

In other ways, the so-called "skeptics" with their orthodox
religion have been trying to influence, to change people to believe
in their way of thinking.

Bruce Daniel Kettler
[e-mail]
________________________________________________________ _______

This brings me to call the reader's attention back to my category
"C" above.  Why this need of "skeptics" for absolute certainty?  Is
it really a need for emotional security?
________________________________________________________ _______

In addition to the above quoted comments, it was later shown by
[e-mail] (Steven Reiser), in another thread, commenting upon the
following of Earl Curley:

     For years, I've heard the same argument by skeptics and
     some scientists alike that psychical capabilities
     (anomalies) should be able to be replicated.  But what is
     everyone talking about here?  Is it being suggested that
     once something is done once that it must be something
     that is constant and without error?  That can be a
     fallacy. <<<Earl Curley <[e-mail]>>>>

________________________________________________________
BDK NOTE: *EVEN IN THE HARD SCIENCES*
________________________________________________________

That would be a gross fallacy even in the hard sciences.  All one
has to do is look at the number of things that can be modeled with
chaos theory, where sometimes overall patterns can be discerned but
discrete event are often impossible to predict. <Steve Reiser>

Also, with psychic abilities one has to train oneself to focus
their attention without distraction and do so in a calm focused
state of consciousness that is heavily influenced by the emotional
state and alertness of the body as well as recent events in one's
life which may or may not be either pleasant or disturbing.  Many
distractions create random probabilities of distraction which may
or may not be noted at the conscious level. <Steve Reiser>
________________________________________________________ ______

To put it another way: if one cannot prove a psychological
abnormality by getting it to manifest 100%, in a stimulus-response
test, why expect psi to manifest 100%.  If a person who has a
photographic memory, tested under laboratory conditions, cannot
show 100% accuracy, why expect psi to manifest that way.  The human
mind does not work a certain way 100% of the time.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++

Scientific study of the paranormal has been known about by
Professors, Students and Scientists for decades.  Anyone wishing to
contact the Universities and Specific Departments may first examine
their WEB SITES, and then inquire through E-MAIL.  They may be
accessed through links from the following SITE:

                 http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc

                            then select

                Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY PROOF:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++

That's a "doctrine" of this group, a GROUP MIND that uses the title
"skeptic" with as much accuracy as carpenters who say they are
clerks.  While the carpenters do *use* records, writing down
dimensions, and reading blueprints, it's the primary duty of the
clerks to be involved with paperwork.  Use of the word "skeptic" is
deceptive, actually.  This GROUP MIND, with clearly identifiable
and repeated traits, is insidious.

The plain and simple fact is that the word "require" is their word.
There is nothing required in the whole world, of society as a
matter of cultural ettiquette, or of the law, for anyone to prove
astrology as real, that psychic ability or mediumship has a reality
basis, or anything similar.  There are laws in certain
juristictions concerning "fortune telling."  There's the legally
required placement in advertising, "For adult and entertainment
purposes only."  Individuals *may* require certain evidence of the
particular psychic prior to paying fees, but that's an *individual*
matter only, and not a cultural norm.  Years ago, in Las Vegas,
Astrologers were required, by law, to obtain a license. An
American Federation of Astrologers test was required to obtain that
license.  That was not for the purpose of authenticting *astrology*
but rather the individual person practicing.

Now, for the benefit of the skeptics, this is hypothetical.  There
may be all overtly telepathic people living on an island, but I'm
not claiming it.  I'm telling a hypothetical story.

*SUPPOSE* (note that word) there's a group of people on an island
somewhere, way out in the Pacific.  They use telepathy regularly
amongst themselves.  Their experience is *not* extraordinary to
*them.*

*SUPPOSE* a "skeptic" comes to visit their island.  The natives are
friendly, and like to communicate with outsiders.  They have a
spoken language they hardly use.  I will imagine that laughter is
a common thing amongst these people, since they are a happy,
humorous, lot of people.

*SUPPOSE* the "skeptic" tells a leader, through an interpreter, "I
hear you use telepathy commonly."  The leader laughs, "Yes," he
says, "we do all the time."  The "skeptic" says, "Well, I'd like to
see that.  Could you 'transmit' to your son, the little boy, to
come here."  The boy comes over, looking at his father, an
inquisitive look, like *what do you want*?  Then the "skeptic"
asks, "Well that was good, but I think there might have been hand
signals.  We have to do a laboratory experiment here because
'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.'"

What do you think the response of the leader would be?  How would
you respond in that person's place?  What would you think?  How
would you feel if you knew your own experience was valid all your
life?

If, in your home, you have a son or daughter with *to others*
extraordinary abilities, a prodigy, and a "skeptic" comes to your
home asking for proof.  If it's *ordinary* to you, do you follow
the "skeptic's" demand for "extraordinary" proof?  If the child is
7 and can do complex math in their head, you might ask the child
for a quick demonstration, but would you meet the "skeptics" demand
to examine the child for a hidden receiver in the ear?

Perhaps some readers would, but most people would be insulted, and
any self-respecting person would not comply with their demands.

The point is that the word "extraordinary" is a relative term.
Since it cannot be defined, except by the criteria of the one
requiring it, how can one possibly be assured of being able to
provide the proof required if the one interpreting what
"extraordinary" is, has decided it?  It was written, recently, in
a public posting that it was "extraordinary" if it was outside of
accepted "science."  What is accepted science?  That's
controversial.  Then, what equal amount of proof would be required
to meet the requiring person's criteria?  First of all,
"extraordinary" claim has to be defined, and then the type of proof
required would have to be defined, as a matching to it. It's not
cut and dry.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO DISPROVE PARANORMAL CLAIMS, SO REQUIRE THE
PSYCHICS AND "UFO BUFFS" TO PROVE IT FOR YOU.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++

The above, as far as I know, is not written as I have it above, but
it is followed as a *doctrine*  It translates, in real life
experience, to this:

          Do not read any evidence of the psychics or
          UFO buffs.  Just read what we've written
          (RANDI AND THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER) of their
          so-called evidence, and only quote that.

They follow that doctrine like "true believers."

Their logic is correct on part of that, because one cannot disprove
such claims, but with the black-white mentality, they think the
remainder of the doctrine must be followed with absolutely no
variation.

After writing the above, I noticed 2 skeptics actually quoting the
writing of Hyman and Utts from the WWW site I've listed in this
writing.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++

WHAT IS IT TO *OVER-GENERALIZE*?

Over generalization is something like:

                   Medical Doctors are wise.

                   Women are not good at math.

Of course, that is "over-generalization" since many women are good
at math, and there are many unwise doctors.


WHAT IS NOT OVER-GENERALIZATION:

            All Medical Doctors are educated.

            Most Medical Doctors are intelligent.

            All Attorneys are educated.

            Most Attorneys are intelligent.

            Most members of the NRA, at least 90%, own guns.

            Pentecostals, mostly, wave their hands in the
            air at meetings.

            Neo-Nazis, most of them, own firearms.

Anything that is statistically sound is not an over-generalization.
If enough people observe the same behavior from enough people who
identify themselves in the same way, that is *not* over-
generalization.

I wrote in this document, that "skeptics" have a BLACK-WHITE,
EITHER-OR mentality, and I've been careful to write that these are
not *true* skeptics, but those who call themselves "skeptics," and
that these are the people who exhibit certain behavior. I'm not
over generalizing.  Certainly, not everyone who reads and writes on
SCI-SKEPTIC, or everyone who calls themselves a "skeptic," is one
of the "so-called skeptics," as I refer to them.

The same observable patterns that I've noticed have been noted by
others such as:

                 P S I - W A L K E R,  I N C.
                 Minneapolis, Minnesota  USA
                 Del R. Mulroy - CEO / PRES.
                 E-Mail: [e-mail]

His posting of APRIL 11, 1996 SUBJECT: "SKEPTIC
                                        SCHIZOPHRENIA"

The reader may note that I dwell more on the excessive suspicion
of the "skeptics," in my recent postings, (and perhaps in a future
revision of this document) while Del notices other aspects.  Also,
I believe his term "extremist skeptics" is roughly equivalent to my
"so-called 'skeptics.'"

Del asks:

     ...why these same skeptics are not out investigating in the
     pursuit of the truth?  They expect the psychics to deliver the
     proof to them.

In my observation, the only material ever reported as having been
read by so-called "skeptics" of the opposing side's evidence is
RANDI and the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER.  Apparently, Randi writes of
laboratory findings, and debunks them.  Then, the "skeptics" report
Randi's debunking.

Since I published the above, I noted 2 skeptics actually quoting
from something other than RANDI, or CSICOP'S literature.

Does the reader really want to debate with people who don't have
first hand knowledge of the *actual* research of the paranormal, at
universities.  When debating UFO issues, do the "skeptics" have
data of other research of UFO phenomena?  Do you want to waste your
time, asking them to look, when, as Del observes,

     "They expect the psychics to deliver the proof to them."

My solution to the problem of the *habit* of the so-called
"skeptics" is to have *them* look at the evidence directly, not
just the accounts of RANDI.  Then, they should objectively look for
the flaws.  Then, the other evidence that has not been debunked by
RANDI should be examined.  I'm referring, here, to laboratory work
on PSI, and UFO information.  One should look to my reference
elsewhere in this writing of World Wide Web sites for PSI
phenomena.  Then look at Brian Zeiler's
([e-mail]) references to UFO evidence, either by
asking him to tell you of the references, or looking at some of
those mentioned in his posting I quoted here.  One might ask him to
place his references in newsgroup postings.

At some time in the near future, UFO WWW cross-referenced sites
will be at the following WWW site:

              http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc

                         then select

              Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
              (or something similar)
________________________________________________________ ___________

I've been called a "hypocrite" and a "liar" by more of these
fanatics than I'd care to mention.   This is what Del refers to
as...

      Attacking the person's overall character in a lame
      attempt to make them smaller than the skeptics.
________________________________________________________ _______
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

An illustration of my point that the "skeptics" argue with
ignorance of the evidence:

Brian Zeiler ([e-mail]) writes:

     I wrote under the presumption that the reader would be
     familiar with what I am.  Read CIA, USAF documents, Dr.
     Hynek, etc. etc.
________________________________________________________ _________

Here's another quote:

     What do you know of UFO's?  You impress me as knowing
     absolutely nothing, and yet your argue as though you do,
     in fact, have intimate familiarity with the evidence.
________________________________________________________ _________

If, as I've been accused, I'm "over-generalizing," why do so many
people find the same behavior repeated by so-called "skeptics"?

Why are these people always demanding proof, and never countering
by answering the *actual* evidence?  Why are they not investigating
the proof that's so abundantly evident?
________________________________________________________ _______


END PART 2 OF 3 PARTS