Science can not yet prove Spiritual existence...

[Tin Lizzie]

Well hello to everybody on this site....

I joined because I was following the 'messages from miscarriages debate', which was brought to my attention on Gordon Smith's forum.

I am not a psychic nor am I a medium. I am not a mental case, and I live very much in the real world with my job as a science teacher.

I have, from an early age, had experiences which cannot be explained. I have received messages from deceased friends and family (unfortunately I have attended a lot of funerals in my time) and I have had several encounters which have been sinister and frightening.

I have seen a few ghosts, and I know that these are different to spirits.

Yes, I have heard voices. This saved my life one time when I was involved in a terrorist incident, but sadly it couldn't help me save the hundreds who were killed and the thousands who were mutilated, whilst all I received was a scratch and a mental struggle which would come some time later.

I am here to open myself to discussion and take in new knowledge. I am not here to be called a liar and have my experiences ridiculed just because they cannot be scientifically proven.

If anybody could provide me links on hot and cold reading I would be very grateful, as these are new terms to me.

I look forward to building my knowledge on this site, not having my current knowledge criticised.

Peace to you all

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Hi,

You could start with Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading

This might not be most comprehensive analysis, but there are a number of decent links at the bottom of the page. Don't let the fact that some are skeptical sites put you off.

And a smaller article on hot reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_reading

[Tin Lizzie]

Thanks for that...

to me it's all about gaining knowledge, i'm just midful of stepping through a minefield (or is that mindfield?) of bulls***!

cheers

[lara123]

good day tin lizzy!so we're in it together,i am hoping for fair decent healthy debates too but as you know have been made quite unwelcome,so we'll see how we get on.

[Tin Lizzie]

Good morning Lara!

*sighs* yes, I really wondered if it was worth bothering with this, but there are some intelligent people here and already I have learned something, so I live in hope!

Peace with you

[Tin Lizzie]

Thanks for those links Farside, that's helped clarify things. It certainly shows how bogus psychics & mediums may take advantage, but there are still too many accurate and relevant messages coming through. In these cases, I think evidence of hot reading would have to be 'proved', and seeing as this is unlikely to be possible, it comes down to what you would rather believe.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Thanks for those links Farside, that's helped clarify things. It certainly shows how bogus psychics & mediums may take advantage, but there are still too many accurate and relevant messages coming through. In these cases, I think evidence of hot reading would have to be 'proved', and seeing as this is unlikely to be possible, it comes down to what you would rather believe.

But that's the point though -all those accurate and relevant messages are just the results of mainly cold reading. As a technique, hot reading is not used as extensively to be honest.

The person being read tends to help provide the information that makes the reading seem so authentic. Plus the misses are forgotten and the hits are remembered. There is a lot more to this than just a few tricks or techniques, it involves an awful lot of human psychology.

What seems like a convincing reading often disintegrates when a full transcript is available. You see that the reader has mostly asked questions, used vague statements or used information privided to them by the subject.

Ultimately it doesn't come down to what you want to believe. If you believe that there is something paranormal going on, you aren't taking account of all the facts.

[Dr B]

I hope you both enjoying debating here. We only learn when we are truly challenged

One thing to keep in mind is that here - we propose or comment on arguments - not people. If we disagree with you - its not personal - its the argument you might be offering that we may question.

Of course, it works in the other direction as well. The only debate around here that has truly descended into chaos is one where a certain individual has been caught out editing her posts and lying. I am sure you can both appreciate why that is not helpful to any debate - irrespective of what you believe.

Have fun....and welcome to the forum I am genuinely pleased to see people here that hold different views.

[Tin Lizzie]

why thanks Dr.B, er.....woofinder

peace be with you all & may your work produce some good!

[Dr B]

Tin Lizzie

You are most welcome!

I am very interested in your chosen title for this thread - could you explain it a little more?

[Tin Lizzie]

Most Certainly Dr.B, thanks for addressing it.

I am referring to the fact that the approach here seems to be oriented towards uncovering bogus psychics and mediums (a worthy cause) and extending further towards disproving the existence of the afterlife (also a fair cause), to which ends the 'truth' has yet to be 'proven'. I am aware that some paranormal psychologists are actually geared towards proving the existence of the spirit world, and as far as I know the school of psychical research is active in this.
My point is that whatever can be said about scientific progress, and there is no doubt that scientific method is the most reliable means of explaining something in concrete terms, it is worth bearing in mind that even though advancements have come in huge leaps and bounds in the last few hundred years or so there are still areas (e.g. quantum physics, the exploration of the brain, the afterlife) where we are unable to ascertain 'the truth'.

In a nutshell, life came before science. Science is a human endeavour, and how can we possibly say that us humans have reached the peak of our abilities? It is a dream (will probably remain so) of mine that one day someone will be able to demonstrate scientifcally what many of us know already.

[Julia]

It isn't the job of science to "prove" spiritual existence. For thousands of years metaphysical specialists - priests, oracles, mediums etc. - have had ample opportunity to come up with evidence that their beliefs are based on more than wishful thinking and a desire to exercise power over the credulous. They have failed miserably, as have the small but significant number of scientists who have entered the fray, usually by throwing their professional and ethical standards out of the window in an attempt to convince themselves that "there must be something in it".

You say that "there are still areas (e.g. quantum physics, the exporation of the brain, the afterlife) where we are still unable to ascertain 'the truth'. Quantum physics is a recognised branch of science, the brain obviously exists - but what is the afterlife doing in this company? There is no more evidence for its existence than there is for that of unicorns.

It's been over 120 years since the Society for Psychical Research was founded by people who desperately WANTED to find evidence that death wasn't the final curtain. What progress has been made since then? Seances still take place in darkened rooms, mediums still convey inane messages from the dead, we're still waiting for worthwhile photographic or video evidence of ghosts. Could this be because THERE IS NOTHING TO FIND?

[Araneus]

good day tin lizzy!so we're in it together,i am hoping for fair decent healthy debates too but as you know have been made quite unwelcome,

No (s)he hasn't. (S)he has made a number of claims which have been challenged, a number of requests for information which have been met, and a few personal attacks which have been dismissed for what they are (with an accompanying explanation).

Unfortunately some believers are incapable of distinguishing between criticism of their beliefs and criticism of their person, this is however their problem and nobody else's.

[Tin Lizzie]

well julia you have also jumped to 'the most likely conclusion'

as for the 'job' of science....please do tell me exactly what that one is (with references and citations please)

There is plenty of evidence out there in support of the spirit world. If you can not disprove its existence without calling those of us who have witnessed things with our own eyes and ears liars, then quite frankly why should I pay attention to what amounts to little more than your 'educated' opinion?

[Tin Lizzie]

No (s)he hasn't. (S)he has made a number of claims which have been challenged, a number of requests for information which have been met, and a few personal attacks which have been dismissed for what they are (with an accompanying explanation).

Unfortunately some believers are incapable of distinguishing between criticism of their beliefs and criticism of their person, this is however their problem and nobody else's.

It's the male version, thanks. Personal attacks...more info please, or is it just that humour is only chosen selectively on this site?

I have no problem with people believing whatever they want & I have no desire to force my knowledge on others. I am just grateful that i can say these things without being carted off and burnt at the stake, as I would have done not too long ago.