Why skeptics doesnt show proof?

[Saturna]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

LOL, I thought about including a 'as long as physically able' qualifier to my example, but I didn't think it necessary.

And you have never been so true...

... a common conclusion to my posts, Hung.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[LM]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Aren't you being a bit 'presumptive'? Just because we can't put forth a 'canned' answer based upon our 'present' level of understanding of the universe and it myriads of interconnected functionings, does not mean that it, the Universe, does not exist.

Tell me how is cold fusion to be finally accomplished? Since no one truly knows what the final development will be, it is not scientifically provable according to your line of thought and present level of development

Do you have the slightest proof or reason to prove that a minute signal, of any kind, will not react with 'any other' body in the Universe in one way or the other and so react as the Lrl proponents claim?

What we do know is that the claims made by LRL proponents have yet to be proven in any definitive way. It is no coincidence that they are unwilling to submit their devices to meaningful scientific testing or wager on the outcome of LRL when basic scientific control protocols are in place.

As far as advances that may traverse what we currently 'know', everyone must be prepared for those to occur and this is why we view claims of such advances with a critical eye- so we can truly know if we're witnessing a genuine discovery, or a garden-variety fraud. The difference between something like cold fusion and long range locating is that one is based on a theoretical extrapolation governed by the accepted laws of physics, while the other is based on figments of imagination that have no basis in science whatsoever, save for its proponents holding out hope that the infinite nature of the universe may allow for anything to exist, including their own imaginary fabrications.

Following this strain of logic, I could use the remote control for my television as a LRL, since YOU NEVER KNOW! IT MIGHT WORK!

 

[LM]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Interesting in that your are flatly dismissing the infamous "Placebo" effect. The medical profession would be interested in you description of an important research tool of theirs as being a hoax and non scientific.

Conversely, it will not work for those that 'believe' it will not work, so have no success. Begining psychology has an answer for that in many phases of life. he he

If I'm to understand you correctly, I can safely infer that you really don't understand what the 'placebo effect' does.
It generally causes people to believe something is working when really, nothing is happening. The Placebo Effect absolutely is what inspires 'belief' in LRL, but you seem to be suggesting the opposite- that the placebo effect can 'overcome' something that DOES work? This is incorrect.

For example, we probably both agree that the placebo effect is in play when someone goes to a doctor, claims to have a cold, the doctor gives them sugar pills but tells them it's a wonderful new cure imported from Europe- they take it and then claim to feel better. That's the placebo effect...

The placebo effect does not work to the converse- for example, if someone drinks a bottle of bleach and believes it's a harmless bottle of water, their 'beliefs' will not overcome the otherwise efficacious chemical and they will quite likely die.

To draw the parallel- it's virtually certain that LRL proponents 'believe' LRL works in spite of it actually not working.
Conversely, it doesn't matter what one 'believes' about metal detectors, because they will work regardless of ones 'belief' in what they do.

People who put faith in implementations that require 'belief' to work are suckers of the highest order. Things that actually function require no 'belief' to do so. I don't need to 'believe' my car will start, I don't need to 'believe' my fridge will keep my mayonnaise cool, I don't need to 'believe' in my computer in order for the screen to light up... Why? Because those are all credible, legitimately functional products that work irrespective of what I happen to 'believe'.

Things that do not function- especially fraudulent things that claim 'belief' is a central component to their functionality- might be able to convince an otherwise weak minded person that they do something meaningful if they just ''believe' strongly enough, but this doesn't make it so. This phenomenon isn't commentary on the validity of the product, but rather on the intellectual fragility of the suckers who buy them.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Morning Sat mi friend: You posted --> ... a common conclusion to my posts, Hung
*************
Hm is second opinon allowed?
snicker

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist"

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

good morning Ls: You posted -->I can safely infer that you really don't understand what the 'placebo effect' does
************
On the contrary, I most certainly do. In premed they taught me the true value of the placebo effect, which included the actual nullification of the desired medical effect of a treatment If the patient did not believe in it or did not wish to believe it, or simply was suffering from a psychological need to keep the problem which in turn was not physical, yet fulfilled a need of the patient.

There is no question that in many cases, such as the LrL, in which the positive Placebo effect is critical in bringing out latent abilities that cannot normally be accessed. But this does not negate the fact that there is a physical connection in one way or the other which cannot presently be explained positively.

The term 'paranormal' is often used derisively, this is incorrect in that the very term 'Para Normal' simply means "Presently unknown", not that it cannot exist. Many of our present accepted things would be so Para Normal in just a few centuries ago that you would have been burned at the stake for even mentioning them, yet today, even our grammar schools accept them as normal science.. So it will be with Lr L's one day.
Don Jose de La Mancha

"I exist to Live, not live to exist

 

[Saturna]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

It then infects my buyer and the guy he sells to an so on.

Technically they are already infected.




The LRL just provides an outlet.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Evening my friend LS: You posted --> The difference between something like cold fusion and long range locating is that one is based on a theoretical extrapolation governed by the accepted laws of physics, while the other is based on figments of imagination that have no basis in science whatsoever.
****************
How can you be so mistaken? theoretical extrapolation governed by the accepted laws of physics is precisely what is being proposed in the Lrl's.. While the machine itself may still be imperfect, the theoretical factors are not, they exist.

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist"

 

[LM]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

How can you be so mistaken? theoretical extrapolation governed by the accepted laws of physics is precisely what is being proposed in the Lrl's.. While the machine itself may still be imperfect, the theoretical factors are not, they exist.

Ah ha! We finally have a substantive claim...
Please, articulate the scientific principles (theoretical or demonstrable) upon which LRL is based.

 

[LM]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

On the contrary, I most certainly do. In premed they taught me the true value of the placebo effect, which included the actual nullification of the desired medical effect of a treatment If the patient did not believe in it or did not wish to believe it, or simply was suffering from a psychological need to keep the problem which in turn was not physical, yet fulfilled a need of the patient.

I'm going to assume that any credentials you earned from this 'medical school' probably involved grinding up tiger bones or juicing snake gall bladders and probably wouldn't be transferable to the 1st World.

In western medicine, "belief" has nothing to do with a medicine working or not. It's why we test our medicines in blind studies. Same with western science in general. "Belief" plays no role in whether something works or not. As I explained earlier, if I lace a glass of water with an odorless and tasteless poison and you drink it believing it to be an ordinary glass of water, it doesn't matter what you 'believe'. You will still die.

 

[aarthrj3811]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

~LSMorgan~

the people who seek a rational answer about them have nothing to gain, aside from whatever personal satisfaction they may derive from exposing a hoax.

And will not except rational answers from people with nothing to gain just because they know what the device will do..Find Treasure..

 

[Rudy(CA)]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

On the contrary, I most certainly do. In premed they taught me the true value of the placebo effect, which included the actual nullification of the desired medical effect of a treatment If the patient did not believe in it or did not wish to believe it, or simply was suffering from a psychological need to keep the problem which in turn was not physical, yet fulfilled a need of the patient.

I'm going to assume that any credentials you earned from this 'medical school' probably involved grinding up tiger bones or juicing snake gall bladders and probably wouldn't be transferable to the 1st World.

In western medicine, "belief" has nothing to do with a medicine working or not. It's why we test our medicines in blind studies. Same with western science in general. "Belief" plays no role in whether something works or not. As I explained earlier, if I lace a glass of water with an odorless and tasteless poison and you drink it believing it to be an ordinary glass of water, it doesn't matter what you 'believe'. You will still die.

You do not believe in the existence of the placebo effect?

 

[pronghorn]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Yep, metal must pass by the coil. But that will require human interface, would it not? That was the whole point of the post. Human interface, remember?

Not once the detector was set up, it wouldn't. The detector would beep at metal within range, even without the detector being held by human hands.
But I know you knew that's what was meant.

Let's see any LRL, react to anything, without being held. Oh, you can 'set it up' however you want first.

When was the last time you saw metal floating around in the air?

It doesn't happen...unless someone waves metal in front of it.

But I know that's what you meant.

Eddie, acting smart doesn't make you smart.
Acting stupid on the other hand can be the best indicator of stupidity.
Why are you choosing to act so stupid?

Okay here is a scenario you may be able to follow, if you choose
to not act stupid for a minute.

My metal detector hangs in the garage on a nail, the coil
approximately 24 inches above the floor. It has been hanging
there since September. It is turned off. Above the nail the
metal detector hangs on is several shelves with alot of junk
stored on them. Are you following this okay?

One day I leave the garage door open and the neighbors cat
sneaks into the garage. When I let my dog out of the house
into the garage, he startles the cat and the cat jumps up on
the shelves to get away. The cat knocks some junk off the
shelf. The junk falls and hits the switch on the metal detector
turning it on. Seconds later the dog runs under the coil of the
metal detector and the metal buckle on his collar is detected
by the detector and it beeps. Where is the human interface
you say is required?

Why you choose to act so stupid as to pretend you don't
understand the difference between a metal detector working,
even when no one is in contact with it, and an LRL never being
able to do anything if no one is in contact with it, why you
pursue this failed illogical argument is a mystery, sure doesn't
bolster your claims of being very smart.

Now you can throw some more of your childish insults at me
again, that really makes you look smart.

 

[EddieR]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

Yep, metal must pass by the coil. But that will require human interface, would it not? That was the whole point of the post. Human interface, remember?

Not once the detector was set up, it wouldn't. The detector would beep at metal within range, even without the detector being held by human hands.
But I know you knew that's what was meant.

Let's see any LRL, react to anything, without being held. Oh, you can 'set it up' however you want first.

When was the last time you saw metal floating around in the air?

It doesn't happen...unless someone waves metal in front of it.

But I know that's what you meant.

Eddie, acting smart doesn't make you smart.
Acting stupid on the other hand can be the best indicator of stupidity.
Why are you choosing to act so stupid?

Okay here is a scenario you may be able to follow, if you choose
to not act stupid for a minute.

My metal detector hangs in the garage on a nail, the coil
approximately 24 inches above the floor. It has been hanging
there since September. It is turned off. Above the nail the
metal detector hangs on is several shelves with alot of junk
stored on them. Are you following this okay?

One day I leave the garage door open and the neighbors cat
sneaks into the garage. When I let my dog out of the house
into the garage, he startles the cat and the cat jumps up on
the shelves to get away. The cat knocks some junk off the
shelf. The junk falls and hits the switch on the metal detector
turning it on. Seconds later the dog runs under the coil of the
metal detector and the metal buckle on his collar is detected
by the detector and it beeps. Where is the human interface
you say is required?

Why you choose to act so stupid as to pretend you don't
understand the difference between a metal detector working,
even when no one is in contact with it, and an LRL never being
able to do anything if no one is in contact with it, why you
pursue this failed illogical argument is a mystery, sure doesn't
bolster your claims of being very smart.

Now you can throw some more of your childish insults at me
again, that really makes you look smart.

So you can show documentation that the above scenario occurred? Were there witnesses? Can it be replicated exactly?

Sorry...the skeptic in me was trying to force its way past my common sense.

I do see the point you are trying to show.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

***** again eddie

Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

*** Prong, You actually posted something that required original thought, and which was acceptable, of course you forgot to mention the human interface that was responible for both of them being there with the detector.


Don Jose de La Mancha
"I exist to Live, not live to exist

 

[pronghorn]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

So you can show documentation that the above scenario occurred? Were there witnesses? Can it be replicated exactly?

Sorry...the skeptic in me was trying to force its way past my common sense.

I do see the point you are trying to show.

Okay then

... acting smart doesn't make you smart.
Acting stupid on the other hand can be the best indicator of stupidity.

Congratulations, Prongster! You've made it this far. By coming to terms with your condition —your chances of recovery have increased significantly.

You certainly have the acting smart part down, to bad you
never add anything pertinent to the discussions. Makes you
feel good to make yourself out as the smartest one in any
thread.
Go ahead massage your ego or whatever at my expense,
someday you will find your G spot.

 

[LM]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

You do not believe in the existence of the placebo effect?

The Placebo Effect is real, but it addresses a matter of human perception- not scientific performance- and is commentary on psychology more than anything else. It can be used to trick people into believing something works, but it cannot be used to 'overcome' the effective properties of something.

If you're given "miracle cure" sugar pills to treat something like a common cold and summarily claim to "feel better" as a result, that's a matter of human perception and largely reliant on the fact that the cold isn't fatal, the body is a mostly self-righting machine and how 'one feels' can be subject to psychological manipulation between the time one first noticed they were sick and the time it took their body to actually heal itself.

If you're given "miracle cure" sugar pills to treat something like cancer, you're still going to die irrespective of what you "believe".

If a bartender mixes gin, coke and antifreeze, passes it out to patrons and tells them it's a hot new drink, they'll believe it's totally harmless- and shortly thereafter, they'll get very, very sick and possibly die.

The placebo effect speaks to the frailty of human psychology and objectivity. There are some people for whom the placebo effect is a non-factor. These tend to be *very* objective people, usually of superior intelligence.

 

[EddieR]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

So if we use our LRL Treasure Hunting devices we are all going die because of the Placebo Effect..Just more B/S from desperate people

Wow. I find it hard to believe that an adult human being who speaks English as their first language could possibly comprehend words THAT poorly....

I always wondered just who the Shampoo company was talking to when they bothered to put explicit instructions on the side of the bottle, warning someone not to drink it. I guess I finally met that guy.

You finally met that guy?

Okay...I gotta know.....Is he really a doddering old man like in the videos? Is he really as nonsensical as he seems to be?
















Wait....we are talking about Randi, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist!

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

I really can't take my eyes off you guys for a minute, can I?

Let's go back to the start of this winding thread. SWR's picture is showing a unit in the off position. Since I have had one in my hand, I can speak from ,,, what do they call that?? Oh yes, experience.

Show the next picture with it turned on if you would. Sometimes half a truth is as good as a lie.

But it was a real good try and it did make them draw their swords again.

 

[fenixdigger]

Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?

I see no need to try to prove this to you either. Doesn't change the truth what you believe.
When I do something, I never consider that I should take pictures or get sworn statements to validate it to someone. The people I deal with on a personal basis have no need for that.

Remember what I said about the rooster?