Life After Death

[Carol]

This show used to be on TV and I watched it often.  I do not know what to think about it, but I like the possibility that this is our reality.     

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CfcBnNxNclcp

[Magical Realist]

Don't get me wrong. I believe in real psychics. Many have solved missing persons cases. But this sort of cold reading of an entire audience seems too contrived for me.

[Secular Sanity]

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/X56Kmbgn6dE

[Carol]

Magical Realist, can you be more specific?  I am not understanding your objection?  

Secular Sanity, the Dawkins and Brown interview is logical but I don't think it applies to what John Edward is doing.  

I attempted to make my above link play and it would not.  Has it worked for either of you?

Here is another and I hope it comes up without a problem.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSYQoAOMwME

I checked this link and works without using the special function for videos.

[Syne]

John Edward is entertaining. I love a good mentalist...much better then illusion.

[Carol]

Richard Dawkins can hardly be considered a critical thinker.  He has too much on the line to lack cognitive bias.  His ego and career would be destroyed if he were wrong.  

Wisdom is taking the position "I don't know" and that is the starting place for critical thinking.  People who claim to know something they can not possibly know, are being foolish.  That is different from saying something is hard to believe and leaving open the possibility.   Please stop ruining my thread with ad hominem arguments.  Knee jerk reactions to arguments do not honor anyone, and certainly, diminish the standard of a forum.  I thought members of this forum had agreed to a higher standard.  

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

---

John Edward is entertaining. I love a good mentalist...much better then illusion.

So far this looks like an ad hominem argument rather than a critical response to evidence that there is life after death and some people can communicate with the deceased.  Do you want to argue why John Edward's claim to communicate with the deceased is not possible?   I did ask for what you think, but you have killed the discussion instead of moving it forward. Your answer wasn't much thinking, but just a gut reaction that you thought clever. That is really a cheap shot, not a high standard argument.

[Secular Sanity]

Secular Sanity, the Dawkins and Brown interview is logical but I don't think it applies to what John Edward is doing.

It applies to him.

I don’t find him entertaining at all. I think that hustling the bereaved is despicable.  

Don’t get me wrong.  I do believe in life after death. Once our immune system shuts down, the bacteria within us are very lively.  In fact, all the little decomposers party like there’s no tomorrow.  

Edward appeared to rely largely, if not exclusively, on cold reading techniques—a fishing expedition. “I’m getting a Joe … Joseph … Jack … or a J-word and this is from a father … father-in-law … or a father figure to someone up there [in the balcony]. I am seeing this in connection with a maimed arm or possibly amputated arm from being caught in some type of machinery, possibly farm machinery. It could also be that the arm was run over by a tire.” When the individual he addressed could not make a connection, Edward repeatedly asked, “Who is near you? Who else is with you?” The audience, of course, wanted Edward to succeed, so they were willing participants in the deception. One individual, for example, volunteered that he had a grandfather who had a finger amputated. “No,” Edward replied, that was not what he was seeing. After three or four audience members could not make a connection, Edward jokingly threatened “Don’t make me come up there…” and he rationalized that maybe his thick “New Yawk” accent prevented the audience from understanding his references. Eventually Edward instructed the entire section to go home and think about it to see if the name of the father-figure came to them. It could also be some event that would happen in their future, he concluded. Well that pretty much covers everything, doesn’t it?

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/14-02-19/#feature

[Syne]

Richard Dawkins can hardly be considered a critical thinker.  He has too much on the line to lack cognitive bias.  His ego and career would be destroyed if he were wrong.  

Wisdom is taking the position "I don't know" and that is the starting place for critical thinking.  People who claim to know something they can not possibly know, are being foolish.  That is different from saying something is hard to believe and leaving open the possibility.   Please stop ruining my thread with ad hominem arguments.  Knee jerk reactions to arguments do not honor anyone, and certainly, diminish the standard of a forum.  I thought members of this forum had agreed to a higher standard.  

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

---

John Edward is entertaining. I love a good mentalist...much better then illusion.

So far this looks like an ad hominem argument rather than a critical response to evidence that there is life after death and some people can communicate with the deceased.  Do you want to argue why John Edward's claim to communicate with the deceased is not possible?   I did ask for what you think, but you have killed the discussion instead of moving it forward.  Your answer wasn't much thinking, but just a gut reaction that you thought clever.  That is really a cheap shot, not a high standard argument.

While I agree with you that Dawkins has a vested interest, you don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. Offering alternative explanation is not an attack on your character. Yes, SS does believe things that speak to the character of John Edwards, but that is not the crux of her argument. He may actually believe he is psychic (not an intentional charlatan) while wholly using mentalist methods. A real ad hominem would be to say you believe these things because you are just superstitious. Her opinion of Edward would only be ad hominem if she were debating Edward. Here, she is refuting your assertions...that Edward is legit. She hasn't attacked your character.

What evidence? Those results can be duplicated by a competent mentalist. All this "knee jerk', "gut reaction", falsely claiming ad hominem (which are all red herring ad hominems to distract from actual argument) are typical ploys used by people who make claims they cannot support with evidence.

So quit pretending you've been slighted, as an excuse for your own ad hominems, and start providing whatever evidence you claim to have. Or have we already seen all your "evidence"?

[Carol]

Richard Dawkins can hardly be considered a critical thinker.  He has too much on the line to lack cognitive bias.  His ego and career would be destroyed if he were wrong.  

Wisdom is taking the position "I don't know" and that is the starting place for critical thinking.  People who claim to know something they can not possibly know, are being foolish.  That is different from saying something is hard to believe and leaving open the possibility.   Please stop ruining my thread with ad hominem arguments.  Knee jerk reactions to arguments do not honor anyone, and certainly, diminish the standard of a forum.  I thought members of this forum had agreed to a higher standard.  

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"

---

John Edward is entertaining. I love a good mentalist...much better then illusion.

So far this looks like an ad hominem argument rather than a critical response to evidence that there is life after death and some people can communicate with the deceased.  Do you want to argue why John Edward's claim to communicate with the deceased is not possible?   I did ask for what you think, but you have killed the discussion instead of moving it forward.  Your answer wasn't much thinking, but just a gut reaction that you thought clever.  That is really a cheap shot, not a high standard argument.

While I agree with you that Dawkins has a vested interest, you don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. Offering alternative explanation is not an attack on your character. Yes, SS does believe things that speak to the character of John Edwards, but that is not the crux of her argument. He may actually believe he is psychic (not an intentional charlatan) while wholly using mentalist methods. A real ad hominem would be to say you believe these things because you are just superstitious. Her opinion of Edward would only be ad hominem if she were debating Edward. Here, she is refuting your assertions...that Edward is legit. She hasn't attacked your character.

What evidence? Those results can be duplicated by a competent mentalist. All this "knee jerk', "gut reaction", falsely claiming ad hominem (which are all red herring ad hominems to distract from actual argument) are typical ploys used by people who make claims they cannot support with evidence.

So quit pretending you've been slighted, as an excuse for your own ad hominems, and start providing whatever evidence you claim to have. Or have we already seen all your "evidence"?

"You don't seem to understand"  That is an assumption about me and I am not reading any further.  Please reword your post, because I do want to know what you think, and that should not be your assumptions about me.  Seriously my first impression of this forum was that it maintained a high standard and I seriously don't want to be disappointed.

[Syne]

While I agree with you that Dawkins has a vested interest, you don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. Offering alternative explanation is not an attack on your character. Yes, SS does believe things that speak to the character of John Edwards, but that is not the crux of her argument. He may actually believe he is psychic (not an intentional charlatan) while wholly using mentalist methods. A real ad hominem would be to say you believe these things because you are just superstitious. Her opinion of Edward would only be ad hominem if she were debating Edward. Here, she is refuting your assertions...that Edward is legit. She hasn't attacked your character.

What evidence? Those results can be duplicated by a competent mentalist. All this "knee jerk', "gut reaction", falsely claiming ad hominem (which are all red herring ad hominems to distract from actual argument) are typical ploys used by people who make claims they cannot support with evidence.

So quit pretending you've been slighted, as an excuse for your own ad hominems, and start providing whatever evidence you claim to have. Or have we already seen all your "evidence"?

"You don't seem to understand"  That is an assumption about me and I am not reading any further.  Please reword your post, because I do want to know what you think, and that should not be your assumptions about me.  Seriously my first impression of this forum was that it maintained a high standard and I seriously don't want to be disappointed.

In adult conversations, you don't get to dictate the terms of the discussion. Yes, everyone has to make assumptions about others based on the limited amount of info they offer about themselves, in life as well as online. Your only recourse is to attempt to correct any misconceptions...and shutting down conversation ("not reading any further") doesn't allow that. Quite frankly, this looks like you're throwing a tantrum because people haven't accepted one video as evidence of your claims. Would you accept one video that purported to show actual aliens or UFOs as irrefutable evidence?

Either make your arguments or don't. But don't expect others to coddle you.