This a great forum for researching human nature.

[woof!]

In a couple other threads the last several days, something interesting has happened.

One forum denizen has offered "4 proofs" why electronic LRL's of the swivelling sort are bogus. The proofs are really good and the apologists refuse even to address the issue. In other words, they'd rather forfeit than grapple. Which means they agree with the proofs.

The "4 proofs" are not about whether people "find stuff" with LRL's, the proofs are constructed in such a manner to open the door to discussion of the possibility that people "find stuff" with LRL's, possibly even usefully through means which at present have no good explanations, only lousy ones.

At least two LRL fans have at the same time said they would like to skip the issue of whether or not some manufacturers are fraudsters, and get on with the issue of why some people who use LRL's report locating success using the things.

It looks like we have grounds for convergence on an interesting discussion!

There are some obstacles to that discussion, but a few things in its favor as well.

1. The people on both sides of the aisle with the most strongest and most polarized opinions are the ones who have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

2. It involves subject matter that most people would rather not know anything about because it calls into question the worldview they're invested in.

3. It involves subject matter that most people who do want to know about it, want to know for the wrong reasons, and it's beyond their ability to understand it anyhow.

4. It involves subject matter which if explored by people who are competent to explore it and want to understand it better, leads away from commercial LRL's as we presently know them. So those here with commercial interests in LRL's will do their best to disrupt the discussion.

5. Those forum denizens whom some here label as A.R. clones are not a problem to such a discussion. It's either far enough outside the world where they grind their axes that they won't have much to say; or, they will decide it's interesting and will contribute their scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills to the quest.

6. Those who regard Marc Austin as the enemy in this matter will have to abandon such fiction and admit that he'd probably be delighted to see such a discussion take place here.


*********************

Knowing human nature, I predict that this forum can't embark on that quest.

I would love to be proven wrong. Who wants to go first?

--Toto

[EE THr]

woof!---

While I don't claim to have so much knowledge that I have an ability to judge, I will say that I can use the same method of forming opinions that I do with artwork---I know what I like.

So I'm just sayin'---I think that each of your numbered points above, on it's own, is an excellent analysis of the situation, and very well put. And all together they seem to sum it all up.

I would be totally willing to honestly and politely participate in such a discussion.

[EddieR]

Sounds like a plan.

I may not be able to contribute much, but I am open minded and am always willing to look at both sides (some here may contest that, but that's because the only side they have shown so far is their backside) and heck, I might even learn sumpin'.

I think it will be interesting.

[woof!]

There are times I love to be proven wrong!

--Toto

[EE THr]

some here may contest that, but that's because the only side they have shown so far is their backside

As far as I'm concerned, this is the first infraction.

I won't participate without an apology.

[woof!]

This is a great forum for researching human nature.

Are we copying the news headlines we've been watching the last several weeks, or are the news headlines we've been watching for the last several weeks coming from the same source as what we just saw happen?

--Toto

[EE THr]

woof!---

If you are talking about my last post, there is a very good reason.

I won't waste my time in a good discussion, if there are people commenting who can't even make their first post in the topic without tossing an insult. Even if it's not aimed at anyone in particular, it's an insult to the topic and the thread as a whole.

Anyone who starts out that way, is not participating in what you proposed, and appears to have no intention to, with his future posts.

It's your topic, so I'll leave it up to you to push the button on people like that.

[woof!]

I was talking about Eddie's post and yours.

I may have started the thread but I have no control over what people post in it, or how they respond to what's posted in it.

--Toto

[EE THr]

woof!---

I was talking about the Report Post link.

If you state the topic, then you can determine if a post is off-topic. I think you would have more pull, considering that, when someone else reporting might just sound like a whiner, you know?

On the other hand, if you just wanted to prove your point, that's OK, too.

[EddieR]

some here may contest that, but that's because the only side they have shown so far is their backside

As far as I'm concerned, this is the first infraction.

I won't participate without an apology.

No problem, EE.

I apologize.

However, please let me explain my remark. It wasn't aimed at you, for starters. There is a member, maybe more than one, that, based on previous posts, would possibly oppose my participation in this discussion. If they don't, then I was wrong. It won't be the first time nor the last. If I'm right, then you will understand.

I'm just a fun loving guy that likes a little humor, no harm intended.

With that said, I do humbly apologize for my remark....I should not have posted that.

Accepted?

[LM]

Mankind has been perfecting scientific rigor since he threw the first rock and formulated the use of tools. Everything you see around you today is an extrapolation of this process. While people may be equal in the eyes of god or the law, we aren't equal in terms of intellect. Some people are able to employ more dynamic mental models than others, which in turn yields more logical, more accurate, more desirable decisions. These people are less susceptible to certain fallacy or superstitions that may inspire great belief and passion in others.

The ground rules of how we resolve scientific questions are pretty clear. We have the sum of all mankind's accomplishments to reference, in this regard. There is a right and a wrong way to approach problems like this and LRL proponents aren't within a billion light years of employing these processes- the same processes that have created everything from nuclear fission, down to the first use of the wheel.

LRL proponents take a few different angles.
1) The more harmless of the lot write off the fact that they 'don't understand it' but for them, they insist it 'works'. These people are what science would categorize as "placebo responders".

2) There are those who come from the vantage that the entirety of the universe allows for an infinite number of 'unknown' things to occur, thus, there must be something more to LRL simply because they really, really want to believe it's true. This is a monumentally illogical position to take, particularly when supporting something very specific that should be simple to demonstrate and prove, were it true.

3) Then, there's the liars and frauds- the ones who purvey lies to push an agenda, either for their own profit or their own ego. Not much more to be said about them. They are what they are.

My opposition to LRL is based on run of the mill science and ordinary logic. It isn't much more complicated than that. I'm willing to have my mind changed, but I see nothing on the horizon that's remotely approaching the credibility levels required to do that. Unfortunately, as best I see it, there's very little to 'discuss' unless we're willing to suspend the scientific requirements we expect of everything and make a leap of faith into the world of the supernatural.

[aarthrj3811]

Re: This a great forum for researching human nature.

Yes it is…
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you

[fenixdigger]

There's a group you forgot. How about the scientific minded skeptic that personally sees and experiences enough to become a proponent of the "results". Not the sales tactics, not the pricing schemes, the wild claims, or any of the crap.

The problem here is the wildest things happen at the most unexpected times. No camera, no witnesses, no one around. Come here and tell what happened and the flies descend.


Most don't want an answer, and don't understand it when it is given. If you have spent any time in advanced psych classes, you can see a LOT of related issues here. Some so far off the hook, you wonder what kind of abuse it took to cause that.

[Mike(Mont)]

Dave, you posted something like this a few years ago. Remember what I said to you? Obviously you don't. I said the people who are interested in learning LRL's are normal people. It's normal for people to share their thoughts on their hobby. It's the skeptics who have no reason to be here other than to harass. You know, the skeptics' loony bin of failed dowsers/locators. BTW, what is the worst sin? Pride. Confucius say...

Maybe you should read a few of the books I posted on the dowsing page, especially the one on Clearing The Way. But the Supersensonics book is the #2 book in the world.

[aarthrj3811]

Hey LT….All one has to do is read this report to see how they were “brainwashed” by a second rate Magician. Poor lost souls…

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...e_amazing3.htm
The Amaz!ng 3 Meeting - Las Vegas, January 13-16, 2005
by Ted Dace
James Randi, Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer in Las Vegas. Dawkins now accepts the "perinormal" and worries that Randi may have to pay up his million dollar prize.

Two days later, Richard Dawkins said he was worried that Randi would eventually have to pay up. Dr. Dawkins had just delivered a truly fine lecture - the high point of the conference, in fact - and Randi had joined the famed author onstage for a public chat. “About the million dollar prize, I would be worried if I were you because of the fact that we have perinormal possibilities.” Dawkins had just introduced this neologism during his talk. An alleged phenomenon is perinormal (from the Greek “peri,” in the vicinity of) if it seems impossible but which, in contrast to the “paranormal,” turns out to be a 100% natural, skeptic-approved phenomenon. Electromagnetic fields, for instance, were once perinormal but eventually came to be recognized as real. The question, then, is which phenomena currently dismissed by skeptics as paranormal are actually perinormal. “I mean, what if somebody-what if there really is a perinormal phenomenon which is then embraced within science and will become normal, but at present is classified conventionally as paranormal?”

Randi agreed he might have to pay up someday. But Dawkins had a trick up his sleeve. If a “psychic” phenomenon turns out to be real, then by definition it is physical and therefore not really psychic after all, and thus Randi still shouldn’t have to pay.

[Mike(Mont)]

Art, it doesn't take a law degree to see that challenge is as phony as can be. There is a catch-all clause there saying it is up to their panel of "experts" to decide if the prize is to be awarded. In other words if you beat the odds a hundred times in a row they still don't have to pay unless they decide to. And if you look at it closely, you have to prove it is supernatural. How can anyone prove that? That's impossible. If you beat the odds then they say it is not supernatural.

[Mike(Mont)]

So if Dave wants to study why people would even attempt to take the challenge, well, I guess they are desperate for money or fame. You know, kinda like the skeptics.

[aarthrj3811]

You are 100% correct Mike…It is a good way of fooling people into making a donation to his life style. It is clear to see just how people he has fooled..Just count the ones here..Art

[Mike(Mont)]

Prostitute the intellect to defend the ego.

Question: Is there a skeptic who has never tried to use an L-rod?

Why is pride such a serious sin?

I'm not going to let some hillbilly show me up.

[woof!]

Well.... lessee..... Mike and Art are still stuck in "whining about A.R." mode.

Fenix sounds interested. Good post. When I posted my own experience with dowsing, did you notice who got parsed arf? It wasn't the "skeptics", it was the AR whiners! Human nature is an amazing thing.

Morgan, don't know if you've experienced things for which there is no good explanation, i.e. "paranormal" stuff. If you haven't, getting used to the idea that some rational and critically-thinking people actually have, including in witnessed situations, may be difficult. Of course distinguishing such reports from confusion, delusion, or outright fabrication can often be pretty difficult.

--Toto