pilgrim.1:


3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our knon world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

How true is that?  I haven't come across any definition of naturalism that captures every phenomenon known in the real world.  I've seen naturalists define and redefine their positions in an attempt to include everything but they fail so consistently it is almost a law of nature that no definition of naturalism includes all known phenomena.  

It's this desperate attempt to find a definition that captures all known phenomena that leads me to the conclusion that naturalism is a reaction based on a bias against the idea of the supernatural rather than an objective position.

JJYOU:

YOU THIS PROF. NAWAO. TRUST YOU ARE WELL?

Lol, my broda. . I dey kampe. How are you doing?

pilgrim.1:

Lol, my broda. . I dey kampe. How are you doing?

doing good thanks. hope this week ba nice one and pls learn to ignore the ever learning and not understanding non tithing brigade

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3993624#msg3993624 date=1244454549:

3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview

7. naturalism alone does not satisfactorily explain the realities of our knon world

8. naturalism is also a belief-system that holds dogmatic assertions

How true is that?

I would say 'tentatively true' - until such time as the atheist naturalist ever would provide satisfactory explanations for the realities of our known world. I think you've captured it in an expanded form below:

Pastor AIO:
I haven't come across any definition of naturalism that captures every phenomenon known in the real world.  I've seen naturalists define and redefine their positions in an attempt to include everything but they fail so consistently it is almost a law of nature that no definition of naturalism includes all known phenomena.  

It's this desperate attempt to find a definition that captures all known phenomena that leads me to the conclusion that naturalism is a reaction based on a bias against the idea of the supernatural rather than an objective position.

Dare I say anymore?

JJYOU:

doing good thanks. hope this week ba nice one and pls learn to ignore the ever learning and not understanding non tithing brigade

That was prophetic - this morning alone, several well-meaning and mature friends have said just about the same thing and asked me to just concentrate on dialogues with atheists and roundly ignore the [ . ] brigade. It's well, I comply - and it's gonna be a good week. Enjoy plenty.

pilgrim.1:

. . . cont.

Possibly. The basic point is: do you take the view that every phenomena in all posiible worlds must of necessity be narrowed to naturalism? Either way (yes or no), why?

To give an example:

Take the question of the possibility of life after death - such that "something" survives the death of a person. Could it be a 'ghost, spirit, soul', etc - expressions which the atheist naturalist is not inclined to. Is it possible to determine by some way or the other that our humanity is not all merely 'material' that lies within the physical plane? I believe so - and the necessary question arises: HOW could we investigate such phenomena?

The naturalist would put this question in another way: "Is there an objective epistemic methodology for this kind of investigation and falsifiablity?"

My answer is "Possibly". So what do I have in mind. Here's an example that lays out this approach:

            Victor Zammit:   Materializations of David Thompson
            (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=6nPe7vK8kCg)

Please observe: I referred to the example above only for the sake of how to conduct such research - not to "prove" theism. Mr Zammit (a retired Autrlian lawyer) notes that he is not into religion, but tries to investigate and present the "evidence for the after life". How does he go about this? There are certain elements in his methodology:

              -  objectivity

              -  repeatability

              -  scientific method

What were they after? Ectoplasm - (spiritualism) a substance supposed to emanate from the body of the medium during a trance. He notes that results obtained from David Thompson's materializations are "real". But you should at least see the vid clip for yourself (Mr Zammit only recounts his findings, no scenes of actual ectoplasmic activity).

The point in all this is simple: when some atheists are presented with such "evidence" of what is beyond their naturalism, what would they do with such evidences? Deny them? Excuse them? Dismiss them? Of do the sane thing any objective 'scientist'  would do - investigate them and see if indeed such realities exists: spirits emanating from physical bodies! It's lazy intellectualism to speak all the grammar of naturalism as an armchair atheist and never take the step to investigate these phenomena.

It's not that these realities are "non-existent" - no one who objectively looks at the evidence would be brash to deny or dismiss them. The basic assumption is that "spirits" actually do exist, attested by the fact that they can emanate from physical bodies as in the supposed experiements in David Thompson's materializations. It is not a question of denying them simply because some naturalists feel threatened that their devotion to naturalism is threatened thereby. Such investigations only seek to provide answers to the following questions, if nothing else:

                --  Is there a reality that survives death?

                --  Do spirits exist?

                --  What are the implications for the atheist naturalist?

Now, if spirits survive death and thus can be proven that such phenomena exist, does that not answer the question of 'Why I Am Not An Atheist'? The atheist who denies such entities cannot plead "neutrality" here - because he's been gambling with a reality that will be a rude awakening for people who discover only too late! Such atheists are flirting with a dangerous dogmaticism in naturalism that is illogical and only limp in the face of these realities. Sorry folks, I do not have the faith to be an atheist! QED.

This is going back to one of my earlier questions:

1) Can we use scientific methods to investigate the non-natural?

2) Is Mr Zammits methodology justified in using the scientific method?

3) When will he know that what he has got is NOT natural but the Supernatural?

huxley2:

This is going back to one of my earlier questions:

1) Can we use scientific methods to investigate the non-natural?

2) Is Mr Zammits methodology justified in using the scientific method?

3) When will he know that what he has got is NOT natural but the Supernatural?

Answer: When we know what exactly is Natural as opposed to supernatural.

Pastor AIO:

Answer:  When we know what exactly is Natural as opposed to supernatural.

OK, let me give you an idea.  Can you say natural or supernatural to each of the following according to what is commonly and standardly accepted ?

1)  An apple

2)  A rump of steak

3)  A ghost

4) A gorilla

5) crop circles

6) Angels

7) Jinn

8.)  Fairies

9)  UFO

10)  Light

11)  Stigmata

12)  ESP

13) Ectoplasm

14)  Thunder and lightening

15)  Mami water

@huxley2,

It does not appear you're making any sense, and using large font does not make you any clearer. I've explained my premise and offered some assumptions to bear in mind, as recycled and retired lullabies will be thrown out for their empty repetitions. I'm tempted to do that just now, but I'd rather oblige you once more.

huxley2:

1) Can we use scientific methods to investigate the non-natural?

Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. . . to an infinite recurrent decimal: Possibly.

Now, just what do I mean by "possibly"? I've explained that, using an example, haven't I?

Just try and help yourself: what do you mean by the "non-natural"? Help yourself here, huxley2. What exactly do you take to be "non-natural" within your working hypothesis? At least, in my own approach I drew from a typical atheist website (Rapid Response Squad) concerning what some atheists may regard as non-natural, using the preferred term: "supernatural". To quote them once again:

       Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally
       extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance.
       That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves,
       boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit,
       life-force or The Force. [here].

Please understand: I've gone to the atheist to understand what he includes in the term 'supernatural' - and having listed them as he did, I proceeded to contain my discussions along such lines.  

Now when you come to understand your own use of the term 'non-natural' (including any set of entities as best describe them for you), then think carefully through your own question again before repeating the same thing breezily. Failing to first understand and define for yourself the very terms you're reposting over and over again, is basically confirming my observation #9 about atheistic arguments:

    "9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue."

huxley2:

2) Is Mr Zammits methodology justified in using the scientific method?

I believe the point in my posting that as an example has been clearly stated. This is not an argument about someone's epistemology; but rather showing that as an example of someone who, at the very least, would be willing to go out and investigate such phenomena instead of being an armchair debater. The question I'm tempted to ask you is: where is your own epistemology, huxley2? You cannot be sitting down and producing zilch but cheap talk with nothing to show for your own assumed superiority. If Mr. Zammit was wrong about:

             -  objectivity

             -  repeatability

             -  scientific method

. . . then you make your own attempt to investigate such phenomena by your own epistemology. That is what thinkers do, and not just sit down repeating questions that hardly inspires confidence in your position. My observation #10 comes to mind:

        "10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments."

huxley2:

3) When will he know that what he has got is NOT natural but the Supernatural?

Does he even know anything about such phenomena, huxley2? Again, the point in posting that link was simply this: such a person attempted to investigate such phenomena by some methodology. His methodology may be flawed or applaued; but, at least, the atheist naturalist should go one step and do his own research and come up with answers. Where are your own answers from your own epistemology?

I've carefully done my homework and waiting for you guys. . . just knock on my door and I'll answer pronto.  I'm very aware that both Mr Zammit and David Thompson are controversial - and there are various websites so bitter criticisms against their works. One such blogger changed his mind after receiving reports from a first-hand witness of Thompson's seances; yet another commented that there has never been any such realities anywhere. Whatever the case, how do we sort out such arguements? Whatever Mr Zammit may argue is not the point: the real issue is this - do such entities (ghosts, spirits, etc) exist? One way of finding out is to go and investigate them by direct observation.

Why do we find that the only thing skeptics and atheists know how to do so well is sit behind some keyboard and shout in large fonts?

@huxley2,

At least, someone has observed my answers in just one sentence:

Pastor AIO:

Answer: When we know what exactly is Natural as opposed to supernatural.

Compare that with:

pilgrim.1:


Just try and help yourself: what do you mean by the "non-natural"? Help yourself here, huxley2. What exactly do you take to be "non-natural" within your working hypothesis?
. . .

Now when you come to understand your own use of the term 'non-natural' (including any set of entities as best describe them for you), then think carefully through your own question again before repeating the same thing breezily. Failing to first understand and define for yourself the very terms you're reposting over and over again, is basically confirming my observation #9 about atheistic arguments:

"9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue."

huxley2:

OK, let me give you an idea. Can you say natural or supernatural to each of the following according to what is commonly and standardly accepted ?

1) An apple

2) A rump of steak

3) [size=14pt]A ghost[/size]

4) A gorilla

5) crop circles

6) [size=14pt]Angels[/size]

7) Jinn

8.) Fairies

9) UFO

10) Light

11) Stigmata

12) ESP

13) Ectoplasm

14) Thunder and lightening

15) Mami water

I could give you a whole list of myriads of others. However, were "ghosts" and "angels" not included in what atheists themselves regard as 'supernatural'? How many times have we quoted that same definition? I wonder why this is repetitious and circular pursuit seems the best appeal to you.

But wait a moment. . . why is it that it's only very few atheists that are in this thread, hmmmm? Apart from Tùdor, huxley2, William_C. . where are the 'typical atheists' on NL?


Just an observation though.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley2,

It does not appear you're making any sense, and using large font does not make you any clearer. I've explained my premise and offered some assumptions to bear in mind, as recycled and retired lullabies will be thrown out for their empty repetitions. I'm tempted to do that just now, but I'd rather oblige you once more.


Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. . . to an infinite recurrent decimal: Possibly.

Now, just what do I mean by "possibly"? I've explained that, using an example, haven't I?

Just try and help yourself: what do you mean by the "non-natural"? Help yourself here, huxley2. What exactly do you take to be "non-natural" within your working hypothesis? At least, in my own approach I drew from a typical atheist website (Rapid Response Squad) concerning what some atheists may regard as non-natural, using the preferred term: "supernatural". To quote them once again:

       Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally
       extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance.
       That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves,
       boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit,
       life-force or The Force. [here].

Please understand: I've gone to the atheist to understand what he includes in the term 'supernatural' - and having listed them as he did, I proceeded to contain my discussions along such lines.  

Now when you come to understand your own use of the term 'non-natural' (including any set of entities as best describe them for you), then think carefully through your own question again before repeating the same thing breezily. Failing to first understand and define for yourself the very terms you're reposting over and over again, is basically confirming my observation #9 about atheistic arguments:

    "9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue."



I believe the point in my posting that as an example has been clearly stated. This is not an argument about someone's epistemology; but rather showing that as an example of someone who, at the very least, would be willing to go out and investigate such phenomena instead of being an armchair debater. The question I'm tempted to ask you is: where is your own epistemology, huxley2? You cannot be sitting down and producing zilch but cheap talk with nothing to show for your own assumed superiority. If Mr. Zammit was wrong about:

             -  objectivity

             -  repeatability

             -  scientific method

. . . then you make your own attempt to investigate such phenomena by your own epistemology. That is what thinkers do, and not just sit down repeating questions that hardly inspires confidence in your position. My observation #10 comes to mind:

        "10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments."


Does he even know anything about such phenomena, huxley2? Again, the point in posting that link was simply this: such a person attempted to investigate such phenomena by some methodology. His methodology may be flawed or applaued; but, at least, the atheist naturalist should go one step and do his own research and come up with answers. Where are your own answers from your own epistemology?

I've carefully done my homework and waiting for you guys. . . just knock on my door and I'll answer pronto.  I'm very aware that both Mr Zammit and David Thompson are controversial - and there are various websites so bitter criticisms against their works. One such blogger changed his mind after receiving reports from a first-hand witness of Thompson's seances; yet another commented that there has never been any such realities anywhere. Whatever the case, how do we sort out such arguements? Whatever Mr Zammit may argue is not the point: the real issue is this - do such entities (ghosts, spirits, etc) exist? One way of finding out is to go and investigate them by direct observation.

Why do we find that the only thing skeptics and atheists know how to do so well is sit behind some keyboard and shout in large fonts?

You seem too hang too much store on what other atheists say.   You are dealing right now with this atheist, huxley.  Atheism is NOT a dogma by which all atheists are required to subscribed to a given doctrinal line.

Like I say earlier, atheism address the issue of god, or dieties primarily.  The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is only a secondary and implied position in the atheist argument (So my earlier statement about atheism being "neutral" on this was rather sloppy).

So to continue what I think is a very interesting debate, engage with my arguments, and pay little store on the arguments of other atheists.  I, for one, rarely visits these "atheists" sites.  

BTW, if my highlighting and enlarged fonts irritate you, I am sorry.  I did it because you seem to evade the simple and direct questions I have been asking.


Now, to the substance.  I know you have said scientific tools could "possibly" investigate the supernatural.  That is a reasonable response.  But why should I (or we) stop there.  We are inquisitive minds and we are constantly seeking for answers to the puzzles that is reality.

If you agree that science could possibly be used to investigate the supernatural, the next thing I would expect a good scientist to do is to try and find  answers to the following questions:

a)  It appears that the natural and the supernatural do indeed interact with one another given that natural tools can detect supernatural phenomenon. What is the mechanism behind this?


Do you agree that this is a fair question?

pilgrim.1:

But wait a moment. . . why is it that it's only very few atheists that are in this thread, hmmmm?  Apart from Tùdor, huxley2, William_C. . where are the 'typical atheists' on NL?


Just an observation though.

where do u think they are?

All they are waiting for is for huxley to successfully divert the topic to their "comfort zone". . .  u will then see them like cockroaches trooping in.

My prophecy is that they will soon resort to insults. . . . .


@Huxley

How very convenient to divert the issue on ground. 5 pages and u are yet to produce ur scientific and intellectual evidences.

how long should I wait?

Found a discussion about the act of Mr Zammit and David Thompson here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59453.

This book might be very helpful in understand these guys (Zammit and Thompson)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573921610/103-4758777-4472616?v=glance&n=283155

Here is a comment from someone who is in communication with Mr Zammit, taken from this discussion forum . Here, he is asking Mr Zammit about a sample of the ectoplasm from David Thompson. This is Mr Zammit's response:

Well, for example, Victor says the medium exudes ectoplasm. I ask for a sample and he says that he can't get a sample because, as everyone knows, if you interupt the medium during the seance the ectoplasm will "snap back" and kill him. You have to believe in ectoplasm in order to see proof of ectoplasm. Does that make it less unclear?

If this is true, that is ectoplasm could not be obtained for fear of killing Mr Thompson, this does not bode well for this "scientific objective methodology", does it?

If he truly wished to pass his investigations off as repectable and scientific, he should have the ectoplasm subjected to analysis, say a DNA analysis.

In fact, reading the post for the poster who is in communication with Mr Zammit does not speak kindly of Mr Zammits objectivity. Of course, I am assuming that this poster is honest in what he has reported so far.

@huxley2,

huxley2:

You seem too hang too much store on what other atheists say.   You are dealing right now with this atheist, huxley.  Atheism is NOT a dogma by which all atheists are required to subscribed to a given doctrinal line.

Okay. Even though I don't agree with you.

huxley2:

Like I say earlier, atheism address the issue of god, or dieties primarily.  The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is only a secondary and implied position in the atheist argument (So my earlier statement about atheism being "neutral" on this was rather sloppy).

Again, I'll okay that for you (my observation #3 applies).

huxley2:

So to continue what I think is a very interesting debate, engage with my arguments, and pay little store on the arguments of other atheists.  I, for one, rarely visits these "atheists" sites.

 

That's fine with me.

huxley2:

BTW, if my highlighting and enlarged fonts irritate you, I am sorry.  I did it because you seem to evade the simple and direct questions I have been asking.

No, I was not irritated, just making an observation that I understood you the first time and there was no need for the repetitions. I was of the opinion that I'd previously attended your questions directly before attempting to simplify my approach or basic assumptions.

huxley2:

Now, to the substance.  I know you have said scientific tools could "possibly" investigate the supernatural.  That is a reasonable response.  But why should I (or we) stop there.  We are inquisitive minds and we are constantly seeking for answers to the puzzles that is reality.

True, we all have inquisitive minds; and we should not just stop at some the gate of some 'schmaltz' (exaggerated sentimentality). This is why I decided to approach this discussion broadly instead of the usual 'Christian vs atheist' . . (there I go again). . "fallacious logicum".    Pardon me.

huxley2:

If you agree that science could possibly be used to investigate the supernatural, the next thing I would expect a good scientist to do is to try and find  answers to the following questions:

a)  It appears that the natural and the supernatural do indeed interact with one another given that natural tools can detect supernatural phenomenon. What is the mechanism behind this?


Do you agree that this is a fair question?

I agree - and thank you for simplifying it further for us all. The question would, of course, presuppose other underlying thoughts, which I should not preempt for now. Just an instance (couldn't resist): wouldn't that depend on what 'natural tools' one may be projecting into the scenario?

I have found out who the correspondent with Mr Zammit is and this is one of their exchange taken from Zammits website. Why don't you read through it and tell me if you think Zammit is really being objective in the scientific sense. You are better off reading the site rather than this post as it is well formated on his site.

---

VICTOR J ZAMMIT: A New York Lawyer Challenges David Thompson’s Materializations

Lawyer Victor Zammit’s replies to a New York lawyer’s Mr J's cross examination of what Victor stated in his report about the successful materializations of David Thompson.

(For full text of the N.Y. lawyer see end of this page under ANNEXURE 'A')

Victor: Absolutely, I can answer all the issues/objections and negative imputations and nuances raised by the New York lawyer. It is good that another lawyer communicates and tries to cross-examine me on one of the most important critical and sensational phenomena of our time - David Thompson's materializations.

A) Mr D, the New York lawyer states, “I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a séance you attended with David Thompson this June. As a lawyer myself, I looked forward to more critical and creative thinking than you displayed”.

Victor: Close ‘content analysis’ of your overall statements and questions reveal that you are operating with at least three unfair and unfounded ‘presumptions’:

i) the presumption that the paranormal does not exist and therefore whatever I report cannot be right,
ii) the presumption that fraud is taking place in these materializations,
iii) the presumption that you have a monopoly on truth and anything inconsistent with your truth just cannot be valid.

Further content analysis of what you stated reveals:

iv) your own deeply entrenched negative partiality against materializations,
v) that you are a ‘hard line skeptic’.

A more impartial analyst would not have stated, “…I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a séance…” but would have demanded more information to confirm what exactly occurred during the materializations of David Thompson in June 06 in order to come to the right conclusions. You came to your negative conclusions without having the full information and your conclusions are not consistent with the evidence stated in my report (stated in my original first report about David’s materializations).

B) Essentially, you bound a man to a chair and sat in darkness while experiencing various phenomena. You then turned on the lights and a man was still bound in a chair.

Victor:That would be an oversimplistic description of what actually happened and tends to reduce the fundamental changes which took place during the materialization experiment. You left out many critical procedures. For example, we bound to a chair a special man - a ‘materialization medium’, not just a ‘man’.

This medium is a gifted materialization medium. He emitted ectoplasm. Ectoplasm mediums are extremely rare in this world. I only know of one in Australia. Two in the UK and none in the U.S. that I know of. This ectoplasm was the ‘medium’ which reduced the afterlife vibrations of the etherians to physical vibrations for materializations - for the etherians to become solid. Those with scientific background have scientifically explained materialization process in my chapter 6 of my book, Einstein’s ‘E=mc2 and materialization’ (A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife www.victorzammit.com ).

The critical importance of ectoplasm: ectoplasm, a whitish gaseous substance, can only function in total darkness and sometimes in low red light. When police raided the British materialization medium Helen Duncan 1956 in Nottingham, England (see chapter 11) and put the light on during a materialization experiment, the ectoplasm was quickly drawn back into the medium with great force, eventually killing her.

Ectoplasm was scientifically studied, Professor Richet, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physiology and by Professor W D Crawford from Queen’s University, Belfast. Both admitted its existence and wrote scientific reports about ectoplasm. Baron Von Schrenck-Notzing, a Munich physician, showed that ectoplasm is composed of leucocytes – white or colorless blood cells – and epithelial cells – those from the various protective tissues of the body.

C) Your inability to see during the performance would seem to make you a very questionable witness.

Victor: If by ‘questionable’ you mean unreliable, then I reject that completely. If by ‘questionable’ you mean needing further questions, yes, I accept that. It all goes to credit. It is not dissimilar to a situation when you close your eyes in a room sitting down and someone comes up to you very close – up to twelve inches away from you, talking to you in an intelligent way. You know that someone is holding a conversation with you; you know that the conversation is being taped, you know a voice is produced with its peculiar rhythm, pace, pitch, intonation; you know that someone actually shakes hands with you; you feel the materialized hand, it is solid as yours; that someone asks you intelligent questions. You ask the voice questions and obtain intelligent answers.

Now I submit that when this situation occurs it does not mean that it is impossible or impractical that someone is actually there in a materialized form, performing, doing the talking, the conversing and the answering of questions. Besides, there have been other prominent people with the highest credibility in this world who reported similar incidents to what I reported – including the abovementioned Nobel Laureate Professor Richet and Professor W D Crawford.

D) Your professed belief in the supernatural would also make you a biased observer - preferring to see confirmation of your beliefs than all of the ways you may have been deceived.

Victor: I NEVER professed any belief in the supernatural. That is an assumption which I reject, totally. Unlike you with your skeptical beliefs, I do NOT have the luxury of ‘beliefs’. As a matter of fact since I started investigating the paranormal and the afterlife I have never stated at any time that I believe in anything. I am on record for accepting the evidence for the afterlife. Objective evidence has nothing to do with beliefs. One is objective the other is subjective.

Notwithstanding that I am a university trained lawyer (now retired) I am also an empiricist. I am also formally qualified with a Major in Psychology with three years full time of Scientific Method. For the last sixteen years I have investigated the paranormal using empirical methodology. I have technical knowledge about what variables I have to control when conducting experiments. That technically and inevitably excludes subjectivity, personal beliefs and assumptions. The endeavor is always for strict empirical objectivity and accordingly, that would not and could not make me a biased observer. If I am biased, then I am biased towards objectivity. I do not investigate to prove anything. I investigate and report what I find.

1. Are you aware that magicians have been replicating the performance you described for over a hundred years?

Victor: Not only am I aware that a couple of magicians have been putting on shows claiming they are replicating the paranormal – but without scientific scrutiny - I am also aware there have been, and there are, genuine empirically based materializations experiments taking place. I am also aware that there are quacks, charlatans and other tricksters of every kind in every profession, in science, in medicine and in the paranormal.

To my knowledge, there has never ever been a magician who was able to duplicate the performance of a gifted materialization medium producing phenomena under strict empirical scrutiny. Never. It just could not be done. There has never been an instant where strict empirical methodology was applied and where a magician was able to produce materializations, produce materialized phenomena and produced materialized voices. Never. And to the claim that a trained actor can come up with seven different voices, with a gag firmly around his mouth, I guarantee it can never be done.

I would be most interested if you could name me just one instant where empiricists reported that magicians were able to produce speaking materialized beings. I am also aware that magicians, including James Webster (who is also a member of the British Circle of Magicians) from the United Kingdom, have investigated the paranormal and have unqualifiedly stated that no magician can do what a genuine medium can do.

2. Are you aware that many magicians and their accomplices have confessed to putting on convincing performances like the one you described using nothing but trickery? http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html

Victor: That website would be irrelevant and inadmissible because it states itself ‘TRICKS OF FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS.’ I am not involved with ‘tricks of fraudulent mediums’. There was never an empirically conducted materialization experiment where the mediums used tricks or fraud or deceit. The website given is a narrative, hearsay account of some of the séances and is inadmissible. The narrative, third party writer there does not identify just one specific materialization experiment, let alone just one séance conducted by a scientist.

The article also concedes that whereas there have been many fraudulent séances, there must have been genuine séances as well. Relating to fraud, the writer of the same article concedes, “… this was not the case with every medium …’ meaning that cheating and fraud did not happen with genuine mediums. My research is strictly empirical. I would be more interested if you cited an example where empiricists, who were able to perceive the paranormal with empirical equanimity, were in control and where they had a gifted materialization medium - and to see what the results were. That you conveniently chose not to report. (See end of article for relevant links on empirical materializations).

A repeated fundamental objection by the hard core skeptics is that there is no ectoplasm – that in fact the medium uses ‘cheesecloth.’ Two things I say to that: first, Professor Donald West (Society for Psychical Research U.K.) is on record for seriously suggesting that materialization medium Helen Duncan hid the ‘cheesecloth’ in her anus to fool the sitters. This he stated when he was severely criticizing Helen Duncan’s materialization mediumship chapter 11 of my book www.victorzammit.com (see http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter11.html . “It’s possible” Professor West boasted defiantly, for that to be done. So I challenged this good Professor to demonstrate himself that to me. I would accordingly challenge Randi or any hard core skeptic who claims that - to show how they can stick long piece of white cheesecloth - the size of a long scarf – then make it appear in form of a human being – e.g. like Louis Armstrong, then to make it sing “Hello Dolly” in the raspish, deep, resonant voice of Louis Armstrong.

3. Do you know that many magicians take great care to secure themselves to a chair (or in a locked trunk or something) specifically for the purpose of misdirection because their tricks do not depend on them being free?

Victor: Be that as it may, you are obviously implying that the medium has accomplices. I stated and will re-state, that it physically impossible for the genuine materialization mediums such as David Thompson to have had accomplices. With extreme care, I (and others) checked the security for fraud myself and guarantee, with absolute certainty, that it was physically impossible for accomplices to have participated in the materialization experiment.

We would be confident to take the medium to anyplace – of your choice - where trapdoors – floors, walls and ceilings do not exist. That the room, floor, walls and ceilings are solid concrete with no windows and only one door which would be secured, sealed and guarded all the time by any independent party. But then, a magician of your choice would have to duplicate the experiment under identical conditions – and when that magician fails, he’s got to hand over half a million dollars to the medium David Thompson (see below).

4. Are you aware that, for over a century, magicians have been using accomplices?

Victor: Magicians use accomplices. Genuine materialization mediums do not. Magicians are professionally trained to ‘cheat’, to ‘lie’, to fool the audiences, to misdirect, misinform, to deceive. Gifted, genuine materialization mediums who are spiritually advanced, do not lie, do not cheat, do not fool or deceive anyone. For over a century, there were magicians who used accomplices- that’s how they give the impression of magic. But a definitive distinction has to be made between a cheating magician and an genuine materialization medium and no expression should be used to expressly state or impute the two are or can ever be the same.

5. Did you take any precautions against Mr. Thompson's use of accomplices?

Victor: Absolutely. I know all the sitters. I can absolutely guarantee that there were no accomplices. It would be a physical impossibility for anyone to sneak into the experimenting room. All walls, floors, ceilings were very carefully checked. Windows were locked from the inside. The only door to the experimental room was sealed, locked from the inside and a chair put under the lock from the inside. Obstacles were put between the door and where chair of the sitter was, so that it would be physically impossible to open the door. All seven sitters were at one time or another conversing with the materialized etherians. When any entity materializes all sitters have to join hands. It is very easy to account for every sitter by the physical position, by holding the hands. Further, when materializations take place, all sitters converse with the materialized etherians and each sitter is accounted for by his/her vocalizing and from identifying the position from where they are verbalizing – sitting in their respective chairs.

6. Did you mark the other attendees with glow tape?

Victor: No that was not done when I attended the first materialization experiment. There were luminous strips put on the medium himself in other sessions. But do understand these are very early days. We are improving and refining the methodology all the time. In all fairness, there was a time, where the medium’s chair was translocated one foot away from me. With very low red light on, I was told to hold the medium’s hand and check the seals – which were intact. I also checked his gag and left my hand on the gag – but the voice from the materialized entity was still being heard.

7. Did you secure the other attendees to their chairs?

Victor: The only security, at the moment, is by way of accountability of holding hands. In one experiment the sitters during materialization were told to identify themselves by name when the voices were coming from the opposite direction. When the voice was heard, each sitter was accounted for and the voice came from the area they were sitting. Briefly, the medium David Thompson sits in the corner – he does NOT use a cabinet. Then the sitters sit in a semi-circle facing the medium. The only door to the experimental room, facing the medium would be on the extreme right hand side – opposite the sitter on the right hand side.

8. Did you bar all entrances to keep out any accomplices unknown to you?

Victor: (**** see answer to your question 5, above.) Yes, absolutely. As I stated, it is physically impossible for accomplices to enter the room because there are obstacles to open the door. There was only one entrance/exit door. All windows were locked from the inside. There were no trap doors in the ceiling, walls or floor.

9. Did you place bubble wrap on the floor or employ motion detectors?

Victor: No we did not. As abovestated, we only had three brief sittings. There is still so much to consider. I am hoping that the experiments will go on for the next six months where other method will be used to assist in the empirical procedure. We will be employing different methods to continue to show what is really happening. In one experiment in England the experimenters among other things put talcum powder on the floor.

10. Would you repeat this experiment while wearing night-vision goggles (such goggles merely collect ambient light and do not give off any light or energy of their own)?

Victor: That was my first question in the very first experiment to the materialized etherian who calls himself ‘William’ who is the ‘control’ of the medium. I wanted infra red video, night vision goggles. The reply was that we have to understand that we are dealing with very highly volatile and extra sensitive afterlife energies. We just cannot superimpose our conditions (what we think is reasonable) onto the afterlife conditions. Patience, this etherian stated, patience. In the future, the afterlife will bring its own light. In England there are materialization experiments going on where sitters are using infra red filming. We would need a few months of investigations on these materializations. Accordingly, answering your question, yes, one day in the future, we will be wearing night-vision goggles, we will be taking still photographs.

11.Would you like $1 million US dollars? If you can repeat the events that you described, James Rand will pay you one million dollars. Go to www.randi.org for more information.

Victor: Let me say this first, I have been advising leading psychics in the U.S. and elsewhere not to fall for Randi’s trap. My research into the offer is that it is propaganda, not a genuine offer. I do not consider the $1million dollar challenge to be genuine. First, he is on record for stating to one of the founders of CSICOP, “I will always have a way out (of paying the $1million)”. That speaks volumes; that reveals intention and that is not denied by Randi. That expressly stated intention shows that he is not genuine and will find someway of not paying the $1m. We are on notice Randi is going to do that.

I had complaints from psychics and investigators – Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others, who had great problems communicating with Randi, notwithstanding they acted according to the instructions on his offer. He just does not respond to their correspondence.

However, David Thompson would take him on but not on the unilateral conditions set by Randi. Among other things, the $1million would have to be deposited with a truly independent stakeholder and on proving the paranormal has taken place, the $1m would have to be handed over to the medium forthwith – no subsequent if’s, but’s, or maybe’s or “let me think about it”.

Randi fails to beat my own challenge

For the record, Randi has not applied to beat my own $1million challenge. He implied he would when my offer first came out on the internet – some eight years ago. I am still waiting for him and any of those highly qualified empiricists closed minded skeptics on the East Coast to take me on.

By countering Randi’s offer, we are too making another offer for any magician – for anyone to duplicate our materializations experiments under strict scientific conditions. At least one debunking skeptic ex-magician claimed he could duplicate any psychic experiment and gets the same results. Let him try. If he fails, he has to hand over the medium David Thompson, half a million dollars. As to one of the fundamental conditions, there will be only one minute notice where the experiments or the duplication of the experiments will be taking place. Also, payment has to be made immediately on results.

12. I predict that, like most biased witnesses I have examined, you will not express the least doubt in your story. However, as an attorney, I wish you would honestly evaluate whether you could withstand a real cross-examination.

Victor: Again, you are making erroneous assumptions by your ‘predictions’ when you do not have all the information to make any prediction. Further, you yourself show that you are a negatively biased witness by your own sustained and consistent anti-paranormal negativity. I reiterate, I am an empiricist and do not have the luxury of beliefs or partiality in any way.

Was Newton biased in his observation of gravity? Was Einstein biased in his mathematical findings? Was Galileo biased in his heliocentric view of the solar system?

David Thompson’s materialization experiments are empirical – they are duplicated over time and space, variables are held constant and they yield the same results – therefore they are repeatable. That is a being empirical. That is being objective.

By contrast, content analysis shows you are a skeptic, even a debunker, with your own personal, subjective beliefs. That is your prerogative. But you are arguing from a position of extreme weakness because you do not have science to support your ‘beliefs’ that the paranormal does not exist, that materializations do not take place. Again, you cannot independently substantiate your personal, subjective, personal beliefs. And as you know, anything subjective is itself subject to error, to complete invalidation. There is no empirical basis for skeptical beliefs.

We have expressly stated WHAT the evidence is. As you know, the onus shifts on to the opposition to show that the evidence cannot be admitted as admissible objective evidence. No one - no scientist, no lawyer, no debunker, no theologian, no closed minded skeptic in the eight years has been able to rebut my evidence and findings for the afterlife. And my own definitive prediction is, with the professional knowledge and experience that I have, no one, no one will ever be able to rebut or duplicate the materializations of David Thompson. And as we all know, anything expressly stated and not rebutted stays valid.

For the record, I guarantee that paranormal activity is taking place in these below- mentioned materialization experiments. I also state that I shook hands with an entity claiming to be a materialized Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) and state that his hand was solid, and that his voice was inches away from where I was. His answers to my questions were taped. At this stage, we are empirically studying the materialized voices to see if there can be an correlation between the voices of those who materialized and their voices when they were alive on earth. At this stage we only have a prima facie case made out that these materialized etherians are who they claim to be. We will be announcing all empirical results on my website in the future.

The above information is very likely to upset the conservatives because it is questioning entrenched traditional cherished beliefs and values. It is challenging scientific orthodoxy and materialism. It is evidence that consciousness survives physical death.

EXTERNAL CREDIBILITY OF MATERIALIZATION

The SCOLE EXPERIMENT http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter05.html which is well documented confirms everything David Thompson is doing. The investigators are highly credible scientists, psychologists, lawyer, and other professionals. See below.

Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments included Professors David Fontana, Professor Arthur Ellison and Montague Keen. Of course, over the four years and five hundred sittings there were many others who attended as senior scientists and guests in the actual experiments: Dr Hans Schaer a lawyer, Dr Ernst Senkowski, Piers Eggett, Keith Mcquin Roberts, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness - all with scientific or other relevant background and a host of other highly credible witnesses who have had years of experience in dealing with the paranormal. In the United States sessions were also attended by a number of scientists. There were a number of senior scientists from the space agency NASA and others from the Institute of Noetic Sciences http://www.noetic.org/ near San Francisco as well as representatives from Stanford University.

Some of the most famous materialization mediums of the last two centuries include Daniel Dunglas Home, who was investigated in a laboratory by Sir William Crookes, Franek Kluski, the Warsaw medium who was notable for materializing large numbers of animals and mediumship was verified by Dr Gustave Geley, who participated in Kluski's seances at the Paris Institut Metapsychique International and by Prof. F. W. Pawlowski.

When you investigate the sheer number of testimonies of highly credible witnesses of the phenomena of materialization you cannot help but be struck by highly credibility of the witnesses and the similarities in the phenomena. For example see the online accounts of the following materialization mediums:

Elizabeth S and May E Bangs (known as the Bang Sisters) of Chicago, Illinois,
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~bretty/articles_bangs1.html

Arnold Clare http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/aclare.htm

Florence Cook, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/cookflorence.htm

Margery Crandon, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/crandon.htm

Stella Cranshaw, better known as 'Stella C.', http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/stella.htm

Frank Decker, http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/deckerg.htm

Elizabeth Hope who worked under the pseudonym of Mme. D'Esperance, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/desperance.htm

The Eddy Brothers, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/eddy.htm

William Eglinton, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/eglinton.htm

Rita Goold http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/mediums/crossley/crossley_pn83-en.html
http://survivalebooks.org/russell/russbyrne.htm

Alec Harris whose wife documented his mediumship in They Walked Among Us.
http://website.lineone.net/~enlightenment/alec_harris.htm

Minnie Harrison, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/harrison/index.html

Cecil Husk, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/barrett/years.htm

Stainton Moses, an Anglican clergyman, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/moses.htm

Eusapia Palladino, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/palladino.htm

Estelle Roberts, http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/02/033/10.htm

Rudi and Willy Schneider, http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/schneidr.htm
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/schneider.htm

Hunter Selkirk, http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/selkirk.htm

Jack Webber http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/webr.htm

-----------------------------------------

ANNEXURE 'A' - full text of New York lawyer

Mr. Zammit:

I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a seance you attended with David Thompson this June. As a lawyer myself, I looked forward to more critical and creative thinking than you displayed. Essentially, you bound a man to a chair and sat in darkness while experiencing various phenomena. You then turned on the lights and a man was still bound in a chair. Your inability to see during the performance would seem to make you a very questionable witness. Your professed belief in the supernatural would also make you a biased observer - preferring to see confirmation of your beliefs than all of the ways you may have been deceived. Were this a court case and were I to have you on the stand, I might ask some of the following questions:

1. Are you aware that magicians have been replicating the performance you described for over a hundred years?
2. Are you aware that many magicians and their accomplices have confessed to putting on convincing performances like the one you described using nothing but trickery? http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html
3. Do you know that many magicians take great care to secure themselves to a chair (or in a locked trunk or something) specifically for the purpose of misdirection because their tricks do not depend on them being free?
4. Are you aware that, for over a century, magicians have been using accomplices?
5. Did you take any precautions against Mr. Thompson's use of accomplices?
6. Did you mark the other attendees with glow tape?
7. Did you secure the other attendees to their chairs?
8. Did you bar all entrances ro keep out any accomplices unknown to you?
9. Did you place bubble wrap on the floor or employ motion detectors?
10. Would you repeat this experiment while wearing night-vision goggles (such goggles merely collect ambient light and do not give off any light or energy of their own)?
And, last,
11. Would you like $1 million US dollars? If you can repeat the events that you described, James Rand will pay you one million dollars. Go to www.randi.org for more information.

I predict that, like most biased witnesses I have examined, you will not express the least doubt in your story. However, as an attorney, I wish you would honestly evaluate whether you could withstand a real cross-examination.

Mr D, New York.

huxley2:

Here is a comment from someone who is in communication with Mr Zammit, taken from this discussion forum . Here, he is asking Mr Zammit about a sample of the ectoplasm from David Thompson. This is Mr Zammit's response:

Well, for example, Victor says the medium exudes ectoplasm. I ask for a sample and he says that he can't get a sample because, as everyone knows, if you interupt the medium during the seance the ectoplasm will "snap back" and kill him. You have to believe in ectoplasm in order to see proof of ectoplasm. Does that make it less unclear?

If this is true, that is ectoplasm could not be obtained for fear of killing Mr Thompson, this does not bode well for this "scientific objective methodology", does it?

Lol, huxley, do not dwell much on these matters in such a manner as to push it towards your naturalistic mindset. I'm not being accusative (and I hope you don't read me so); but the "scientific objective methodology" you're referring to assumes that, one should be able to collect samples of a 'spirit' or other such entitles in a physical crucible. That idea only blurs the line between what is 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Have you thought about the fact that scientific objective methodology may very the existence of a phenomena by direct observation, even though the observer (scientist) may not be able to offer a scientific explanation for what he observes? The basic point here is whether or not such things exist - which is at the foundation of other considerations of how to explain them. The "scientific objective methodology" you posit does not attempt to deny the existence of such phenomena as 'spirits', but rather at the basic level may observe the reality of such things. Only after that fundamental level does the investigator seek to explain those observations within the framework of a working hypothesis.

huxley2:

If he truly wished to pass his investigations off as repectable and scientific, he should have the ectoplasm subjected to analysis, say a DNA analysis.

He did not conduct the research alone - and if others are not satisfied with his methodology, nothing stops them from embarking on the same investigations.

huxley2:

In fact, reading the post for the poster who is in communication with Mr Zammit does not speak kindly of Mr Zammits objectivity. Of course, I am assuming that this poster is honest in what he has reported so far.

I already noted that there are numerous websites that are very critical of Mr Zammit and David Thompson. However, let me comment on the following:

huxley2:

Found a discussion about the act of Mr Zammit and David Thompson here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59453.

This book might be very helpful in understand these guys (Zammit and Thompson)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573921610/103-4758777-4472616?v=glance&n=283155

For the second, I'd just like to know if you've read that book yourself - and if so, was that a response to Zammit and Thompson? I'm taking for granted that you've read the book yourself and not relying on the comments of reviewers at Amazon.com.

However, for someone who has been quite skeptical of Thompson, I'll repost excerpts of some of the reports he got that helped him to change his mind about Thompson's seances:

[list]

Michael Prescott's Blog

As long-time readers of this blog know, I've been very skeptical of the English medium David Thompson, who has participated in a series of séances with a group called the Circle of the Silver Cord in Sydney, Australia. . .

[  ]

Recently, however, I've started to think I was wrong about David Thompson. That is not to say there are no problems with his mediumship. I do think there are problems. There are many unanswered questions and many doubtful phenomena. But I am no longer committed to my theory that Thompson is escaping from his bonds to put on a fraudulent performance.

[  ]

Second, I've been in touch with someone who attended a David Thompson séance in the United States not long ago. This person would prefer not to be named because he doesn't want to be drawn into the sometimes rough-and-tumble online controversy. But his report of what happened is quite credible, presented in a no-nonsense tone with a lot of detail. Here are some of the facts that stood out when I read his description.

The room in which the séance took place was one that Thompson had never entered before. Since Thompson hails from the UK and has recently been living in Australia, it's not surprising that he would be unfamiliar with a building in the USA. The room was small and, when all the sitters were assembled, quite crowded. Between 22 and 24 people sat for the séance in closely arranged chairs that left little or no room for maneuvering. The sitters arranged large plywood boards over the carpeted floor so that any footsteps would be audible. Thompson was secured to a chair he had not supplied -- which, again, is not surprising, since he would hardly have transported a chair from overseas to the United States. The circle members were seated so closely together, in such cramped quarters, that had any of them left the circle, the person's defection would surely have been detected. The only door to the room was locked, and the windows were boarded shut. Thompson himself was placed in a makeshift "cabinet" -- essentially he was behind a curtain. Everyone was searched with the use of a metal detector when entering the room. Their pockets and shoes were examined, and many of their belongings (jewelry etc.) were removed.

Thompson asked for £40 from each sitter to cover his expenses (about $75). This is not a trivial amount; considering there were between 22 and 24 sitters, total earnings from the event would have been at least $1650. Still, the amount is less than the $280 per sitter that other sources have reported as Thompson's fee. And given the travel costs, it seems unlikely that Thompson made any net profit.

What is more significant is that the trumpet would speed up to a sitter's face and stop instantly when just touching the tip of the person's nose -- then repeat this action as many as four times in succession. My correspondent did not think that any human agent, working in pitch darkness, could manipulate the trumpet so precisely. It's one thing to move the trumpet helter-skelter, but another to guide it with such rapidity and precision to a particular target in the dark and do so over and over again without error. My correspondent did not hear any footsteps on the plywood planks that would have suggested a human operator.

An even more dramatic effect occurred at the very end of the séance, when a loud crash was heard in the center of the room, between the two sets of folding chairs. When the lights came on, Thompson was found, secured and gagged, in his chair at that very spot. It appeared as if the chair, with Thompson in it, had been moved out from behind the curtain (which was undisturbed) and dropped heavily onto the floor. Again, no footsteps were heard on the plywood planks. If Thompson, free of his restraints, had lugged the chair into the center of the room, it seems almost certain his footsteps would have been audible, and he very likely would have brushed against some of the sitters in the confined space. The same is true if we imagine that an accomplice or accomplices had carried the chair and dropped it.


Read more here.

[/list]

I've deliberately left the quote without highlighting anything so as not to influence the reader's mind one way or another. For me, I only present these issues from an objective point of reference such as that a skeptic may not be right in just arguing for the sake of it. Have such skeptics attempted to conduct independent researches of their own in an objective manner? Have they convincingly proven that in all possible worlds, such phenomena as 'ghosts' and 'spirits' do not exists?

Okay, I remember: deal with this atheist huxley2 here - and not plaster him with the presumptions of other atheists. Aiight. Could I therefore ask you if you have your own independent "scientific objective methodology" for investigating phenomena and interractions between the natural and supernatural?

pilgrim.1:

If this is true, that is ectoplasm could not be obtained for fear of killing Mr Thompson, this does not bode well for this "scientific objective methodology", does it?

Lol, huxley, do not dwell much on these matters in such a manner as to push it towards your naturalistic mindset. I'm not being accusative (and I hope you don't read me so); but the "scientific objective methodology" you're referring to assumes that, one should be able to collect samples of a 'spirit' or other such entitles in a physical crucible. That idea only blurs the line between what is 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Have you thought about the fact that scientific objective methodology may very the existence of a phenomena by direct observation, even though the observer (scientist) may not be able to offer a scientific explanation for what he observes? The basic point here is whether or not such things exist - which is at the foundation of other considerations of how to explain them. The "scientific objective methodology" you posit does not attempt to deny the existence of such phenomena as 'spirits', but rather at the basic level may observe the reality of such things. Only after that fundamental level does the investigator seek to explain those observations within the framework of a working hypothesis.

He did not conduct the research alone - and if others are not satisfied with his methodology, nothing stops them from embarking on the same investigations.

I already noted that there are numerous websites that are very critical of Mr Zammit and David Thompson. However, let me comment on the following:

For the second, I'd just like to know if you've read that book yourself - and if so, was that a response to Zammit and Thompson? I'm taking for granted that you've read the book yourself and not relying on the comments of reviewers at Amazon.com.

However, for someone who has been quite skeptical of Thompson, I'll repost excerpts of some of the reports he got that helped him to change his mind about Thompson's seances:

[list][/list]

I've deliberately left the quote without highlighting anything so as not to influence the reader's mind one way or another. For me, I only present these issues from an objective point of reference such as that a skeptic may not be right in just arguing for the sake of it. Have such skeptics attempted to conduct independent researches of their own in an objective manner? Have they convincingly proven that in all possible worlds, such phenomena as 'ghosts' and 'spirits' do not exists?

Okay, I remember: deal with this atheist huxley2 here - and not plaster him with the presumptions of other atheists. Aiight. Could I therefore ask you if you have your own independent "scientific objective methodology" for investigating phenomena and interractions between the natural and supernatural?

Well, this is not an indictment on you but on Mr Zammit. He claims to be an empericist who has used objective means to investigate the claims of Mr Thompson. But when one begins to investigate his methods, one finds it falls short of what mainstream scientific investigators would use;

1) He never used any motion detectors

2) The seances were conducted in darkness and he did not use any night vision devices

3) He has no sample of the outcome of the seances

4) He claimed he shoke hands with a spirit and called it "solid", but he has no sample of material from the "spirit". How could it have been "solid" to the extend that he shoke hand with him?

Simply put, his methodology is flawed and even a 16 year old fresherman/woman would see just would unscientific his methods are.

Lol, predictable. . . distractions with long-drawn out posts.

Let me help you:

huxley2:

Victor: Close ‘content analysis’ of your overall statements and questions reveal that you are operating with at least three unfair and unfounded ‘presumptions’:

i) the presumption that the paranormal does not exist and therefore whatever I report cannot be right,
ii) the presumption that fraud is taking place in these materializations,
iii) the presumption that you have a monopoly on truth and anything inconsistent with your truth just cannot be valid.

   /\
   ||
Do you have a problem with those assumptions, huxley2?

huxley2:

Further content analysis of what you stated reveals:

iv) your own deeply entrenched negative partiality against materializations,
v) that you are a ‘hard line skeptic’.

A more impartial analyst would not have stated, “…I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a séance…” but would have demanded more information to confirm what exactly occurred during the materializations of David Thompson in June 06 in order to come to the right conclusions. You came to your negative conclusions without having the full information and your conclusions are not consistent with the evidence stated in my report (stated in my original first report about David’s materializations).

   /\
   ||
And that also?

huxley2:

B) Essentially, you bound a man to a chair and sat in darkness while experiencing various phenomena. You then turned on the lights and a man was still bound in a chair.

Victor:That would be an oversimplistic description of what actually happened and tends to reduce the fundamental changes which took place during the materialization experiment. You left out many critical procedures. For example, we bound to a chair a special man - a ‘materialization medium’, not just a ‘man’.

This medium is a gifted materialization medium. He emitted ectoplasm. Ectoplasm mediums are extremely rare in this world. I only know of one in Australia. Two in the UK and none in the U.S. that I know of. This ectoplasm was the ‘medium’ which reduced the afterlife vibrations of the etherians to physical vibrations for materializations - for the etherians to become solid. Those with scientific background have scientifically explained materialization process in my chapter 6 of my book, Einstein’s ‘E=mc2 and materialization’ (A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife www.victorzammit.com ).

   /\
   ||
And this, hmmm?

huxley2:

The critical importance of ectoplasm: ectoplasm, a whitish gaseous substance, can only function in total darkness and sometimes in low red light. When police raided the British materialization medium Helen Duncan 1956 in Nottingham, England (see chapter 11) and put the light on during a materialization experiment, the ectoplasm was quickly drawn back into the medium with great force, eventually killing her.

Ectoplasm was scientifically studied, Professor Richet, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physiology and by Professor W D Crawford from Queen’s University, Belfast. Both admitted its existence and wrote scientific reports about ectoplasm. Baron Von Schrenck-Notzing, a Munich physician, showed that ectoplasm is composed of leucocytes – white or colorless blood cells – and epithelial cells – those from the various protective tissues of the body.

   /\
   ||
So far so good? . . or you have an 'epistemology' that deviates from that?

huxley2:

C) Your inability to see during the performance would seem to make you a very questionable witness.

Victor: If by ‘questionable’ you mean unreliable, then I reject that completely. If by ‘questionable’ you mean needing further questions, yes, I accept that. It all goes to credit. It is not dissimilar to a situation when you close your eyes in a room sitting down and someone comes up to you very close – up to twelve inches away from you, talking to you in an intelligent way. You know that someone is holding a conversation with you; you know that the conversation is being taped, you know a voice is produced with its peculiar rhythm, pace, pitch, intonation; you know that someone actually shakes hands with you; you feel the materialized hand, it is solid as yours; that someone asks you intelligent questions. You ask the voice questions and obtain intelligent answers.

Now I submit that when this situation occurs it does not mean that it is impossible or impractical that someone is actually there in a materialized form, performing, doing the talking, the conversing and the answering of questions. Besides, there have been other prominent people with the highest credibility in this world who reported similar incidents to what I reported – including the abovementioned Nobel Laureate Professor Richet and Professor W D Crawford.

Oga huxley2, comprehend? What epistemology bores holes in Zammit's answers?

huxley2:

D) Your professed belief in the supernatural would also make you a biased observer - preferring to see confirmation of your beliefs than all of the ways you may have been deceived.

Victor: [size=14pt]I NEVER professed any belief in the supernatural[/size]. That is an assumption which I reject, totally. Unlike you with your skeptical beliefs, I do NOT have the luxury of ‘beliefs’. As a matter of fact since I started investigating the paranormal and the afterlife I have never stated at any time that I believe in anything. [size=14pt]I am on record for accepting the evidence for the afterlife[/size]. Objective evidence has nothing to do with beliefs. One is objective the other is subjective.

Notwithstanding that I am a university trained lawyer (now retired) I am also an empiricist. I am also formally qualified with a Major in Psychology with three years full time of Scientific Method. For the last sixteen years I have investigated the paranormal using empirical methodology. I have technical knowledge about what variables I have to control when conducting experiments. That technically and inevitably excludes subjectivity, personal beliefs and assumptions. The endeavor is always for strict empirical objectivity and accordingly, that would not and could not make me a biased observer. If I am biased, then I am biased towards objectivity. [size=14pt]I do not investigate to prove anything. I investigate and report what I find[/size].

Okay, pardon me - now I'm hardly containing myself and plead guilty of my shouting.   Forgive me. But the wonder of it all is that I already saw all this and deliberately did not go to Zammit's website to ferret anything. Thank goodness you did! I would now have to ask you to proffer some reasonable critical counters to his methodology. That would be simple and interesting to see.

Before I continue, let me make one thing absoultely clear: I'm not Mr Zammit's amanuensis or standing to defend his work. It's obvious that he is well able to defend his work against any skeptic.

That said, let me review your latest concerns.

huxley2:

Well, this is not an indictment on you but on Mr Zammit.

I understand that.

huxley2:

He claims to be an empericist who has used objective means to investigate the claims of Mr Thompson. But when one begins to investigate his methods, one finds it falls short of what mainstream scientific investigators would use;

Mainstream scientific investigators of the sort that you may be referring to are intellectually lazy dunces. Lol, that is not an indictment at you; but I find this convenient clap-trap quite amusing and just too irrestible to throw out whenever it crops up.

Let's be objective: you seem to assume that there is "only one way and one way only" to emprical research; so that if it does not turn out in a certain way as you had anticipated, it could then be null and void! That is quite cultish and very revealing of a closed mindset to enquiry. Let's mirror this against what you've stated:

huxley2:

1) He never used any motion detectors

That is self-explanatory, as it is not on that basis that the whole research falls. Let's review his answers:

[list]

9. Did you place bubble wrap on the floor or employ motion detectors?

Victor: No we did not. As abovestated, we only had three brief sittings. There is still so much to consider. I am hoping that the experiments will go on for the next six months where other method will be used to assist in the empirical procedure. We will be employing different methods to continue to show what is really happening. In one experiment in England the experimenters among other things put talcum powder on the floor.

[/list]

If it was about detecting motion or movements that might otherwise reveal that there were movements within the room or enclosure (in the case of footsteps), re-read this one I posted earlier:

[list]

The room in which the séance took place was one that Thompson had never entered before. Since Thompson hails from the UK and has recently been living in Australia, it's not surprising that he would be unfamiliar with a building in the USA. The room was small and, when all the sitters were assembled, quite crowded. Between 22 and 24 people sat for the séance in closely arranged chairs that left little or no room for maneuvering. The sitters arranged large plywood boards over the carpeted floor so that any footsteps would be audible. Thompson was secured to a chair he had not supplied -- which, again, is not surprising, since he would hardly have transported a chair from overseas to the United States. The circle members were seated so closely together, in such cramped quarters, that had any of them left the circle, the person's defection would surely have been detected. The only door to the room was locked, and the windows were boarded shut. Thompson himself was placed in a makeshift "cabinet" -- essentially he was behind a curtain. Everyone was searched with the use of a metal detector when entering the room. Their pockets and shoes were examined, and many of their belongings (jewelry etc.) were removed.

[/list]

Were there no other ways to detect the sort of 'motion' that you were enquiring about?

huxley2:

2) The seances were conducted in darkness and he did not use any night vision devices

I think he's very well answered that objection.

huxley2:

3) He has no sample of the outcome of the seances

He answered that as well. I also asked you a simple question in that regard - what sayest thou?

huxley2:

4) He claimed he shoke hands with a spirit and called it "solid", but he has no sample of material from the "spirit". How could it have been "solid" to the extend that he shoke hand with him?

Is it possible that you're mixing issues up for yourself? He did not describe the spirit as essential composed of physical material for it to be "solid". That it manifested in such ways does not make a 'spirit' something you could collect in a crucible.

huxley2:

Simply put, his methodology is flawed and even a 16 year old fresherman/woman would see just would unscientific his methods are.

You have not shown how his methodology is flawed but only reacting from your mental bias. Thank goodness you were the one to rush to his website and reproduce his well-articulated answers to the sort of objections you raised. Just because his methodology may be "flawed" (without your showing how), what conclusions have you derived therefrom?

pilgrim.1:

Before I continue, let me make one thing absoultely clear: I'm not Mr Zammit's amanuensis or standing to defend his work. It's obvious that he is well able to defend his work against any skeptic.

That said, let me review your latest concerns.

I understand that.

Mainstream scientific investigators of the sort that you may be referring to are intellectually lazy dunces. Lol, that is not an indictment at you; but I find this convenient clap-trap quite amusing and just too irrestible to throw out whenever it crops up.

Let's be objective: you seem to assume that there is "only one way and one way only" to emprical research; so that if it does not turn out in a certain way as you had anticipated, it could then be null and void! That is quite cultish and very revealing of a closed mindset to enquiry. Let's mirror this against what you've stated:

That is self-explanatory, as it is not on that basis that the whole research falls. Let's review his answers:

[list][/list]

If it was about detecting motion or movements that might otherwise reveal that there were movements within the room or enclosure (in the case of footsteps), re-read this one I posted earlier:

[list][/list]

Were there no other ways to detect the sort of 'motion' that you were enquiring about?

I think he's very well answered that objection.

He answered that as well. I also asked you a simple question in that regard - what sayest thou?

Is it possible that you're mixing issues up for yourself? He did not describe the spirit as essential composed of physical material for it to be "solid". That it manifested in such ways does not make a 'spirit' something you could collect in a crucible.

You have not shown how his methodology is flawed but only reacting from your mental bias. Thank goodness you were the one to rush to his website and reproduce his well-articulated answers to the sort of objections you raised. Just because his methodology may be "flawed" (without your showing how), what conclusions have you derived therefrom?

From what you know of the Zammit experience, supposing the same write-up were submitted as a thesis in a university for say a Masters or PhD, would you recommend a pass, fail, referral for more work? Let me tell you where I stand. I would recommend referral. Why? Because I would like to see

1) samples of ectoplasm and the results of a DNA analysis

2) The use of motion detector or talcum power

3) Night-vision equipement

4) Sample from the "spirit"

5) Some justification that spirit and ectoplasm are sensitive to "scientific equipments"

6) I would get another independent outside body (just like external PhD examiners) to review the process and outcome.

I do not deny that Mr Zammit has not investigated Mr Thompson, but he falls short of an unbiased objective investigator. I realised that you would make the same accusation about science, but this position of tentative skeptism is what makes science such a powerful tool.

Now, you sit here and comfortably enjoy the fruits of science and the scientific method and yet you have the gall to describe the hard-working scientist and lazy dunces. Can you name one useful fruit of supernaturalism? Mr Zammit claims to be a thorough investigator, yet he did not put in place some of the most basic of things to ensure that his investigation was thorough and unbiased. Does that smack you as hard-working and dilligent?


Just name one useful fruit of supernaturalism that is enjoyed the world over and recognised as having brought mankind wholesome benefits, and I shall rest my case.

@huxley2,

huxley2:

From what you know of the Zammit experience, supposing the same write-up were submitted as a thesis in a university for say a Masters or PhD, would you recommend a pass, fail, referral for more work? Let me tell you where I stand. I would recommend referral.

There certainly are serious grounds for why I would take your exact same recommendation - referral. Man, you impressed me there, I must admit - if I'd proffered that question and you chose anything else, it would make me rethink.

huxley2:

Why? Because I would like to see

1) samples of ectoplasm and the results of a DNA analysis

What if it were recommended that you attend one of those sessions in situ? Put another way, assuming a scientist told you about the existence of "dark matter" (a substance that scientists think exists out in space, but for which they have no direct proof), would you be acting the same way and asking for sampling? Would such a suggestion be thrown out simply because you cannot obtain your required "samples"? In the same way, are there no other means or ways of direct observation to verify the claims in the ectoplasm research as in Zammit's?

huxley2:

2) The use of motion detector or talcum power

He mentioned talcum powder, at least. More research (according to him) would be conducted to augment current findings.

huxley2:

3) Night-vision equipement

He explained this as well.

huxley2:

4) Sample from the "spirit"

Refer above to my observations about in situ direct observations.

huxley2:

5) Some justification that spirit and ectoplasm are sensitive to "scientific equipments"

he gave some pointers in this regard.

huxley2:

6) I would get another independent outside body (just like external PhD examiners) to review the process and outcome.

He listed such independent corroborators in the research. In my subsequent reply I'll post relevant sections for these.

Strange that I asked the above questions and more as you did, before selecting Zammit's research as a credible example for this discussion. I'm inclined to a consistency in my approach, which is why I've been referring to researches or examples from non-religious sources. It does not mean that I've abandoned my own convictions in my Christian worldview; but I thought that citing non-religious sources may help foster a good dialogue with Nairaland atheists. There are many more of such examples; but Zammit's passed my evaluation test to be included in this discussion.

huxley2:

I do not deny that Mr Zammit has not investigated Mr Thompson, but he falls short of an unbiased objective investigator. I realised that you would make the same accusation about science, but this position of tentative skeptism is what makes science such a powerful tool.

On the contrary, I'm not that presumptive to accuse "science" of anything. The thing is that you haven't shown objectivity in your faulting Zammit - if only you take a second look at what you reposted from his website. I'll highlight some of these in just a moment following this reply.

huxley2:

Now, you sit here and comfortably enjoy the fruits of science and the scientific method and yet you have the gall to describe the hard-working scientist and lazy dunces.

I didn't describe hard-working scientist as such, but was referring to those who pretend to be doing "science" without objectivity. If someone would be hooting for 'scientific method' and is unwilling to be objective, I would take such a person with little consequence.

huxley2:

Can you name one useful fruit of supernaturalism?

That's what has brought us thus far: the understanding that there's a reality beyond atheistic naturalism. It's funny that all the examples I've presented have not received objective critique from you guys; nor have you demonstrated your own working hypothesis for the terms you discuss. On the other hand, I also asked a question: what would be the implications for the atheist naturalist when he discovers that there's indeed a supernatural reality?

huxley2:

Mr Zammit claims to be a thorough investigator, yet he did not put in place some of the most basic of things to ensure that his investigation was thorough and unbiased. Does that smack you as hard-working and dilligent?

He did more than you requested - and I deliberately chose him as a viable and credible example for precisely that criteria and even more. Some of these are what I shall highlight subsequently.

huxley2:

Just name one useful fruit of supernaturalism that is enjoyed the world over and recognised as having brought mankind wholesome benefits, and I shall rest my case.

I have - please refer above.

@huxley2,

As promised:

[list]

pilgrim.1:

He listed such independent corroborators in the research. In my subsequent reply I'll post relevant sections for these.

pilgrim.1:

The thing is that you haven't shown objectivity in your faulting Zammit - if only you take a second look at what you reposted from his website. I'll highlight some of these in just a moment following this reply.

pilgrim.1:

He did more than you requested - and I deliberately chose him as a viable and credible example for precisely that criteria and even more. Some of these are what I shall highlight subsequently.

[/list]

After all the typical reactions (actually 'distractions') of those most skeptics, I'd like to ask you to consider the following from what you posted. It is not as if Zammit's research and report are smooth and tight, for I don't know who's "objective" enough to say that is the case?

1. Are you aware that magicians have been replicating the performance you described for over a hundred years?

Victor: Not only am I aware that a couple of magicians have been putting on shows claiming they are replicating the paranormal – but without scientific scrutiny - I am also aware there have been, and there are, genuine empirically based materializations experiments taking place. I am also aware that there are quacks, charlatans and other tricksters of every kind in every profession, in science, in medicine and in the paranormal.

To my knowledge, there has never ever been a magician who was able to duplicate the performance of a gifted materialization medium producing phenomena under strict empirical scrutiny. Never. It just could not be done. There has never been an instant where strict empirical methodology was applied and where a magician was able to produce materializations, produce materialized phenomena and produced materialized voices. Never. And to the claim that a trained actor can come up with seven different voices, with a gag firmly around his mouth, I guarantee it can never be done.

Certainly, I have problems with such assertions. Although I do not have (or rather, I'm not aware of) any record of any magician producing the effects that Mr Zammit asserts, the tone of finality ("Never. It just could not be done" is a bit brash. The better thing that perhaps could be said is that he has not seen, heard or experience such phenomena in any magician (for it would be preposterious to assume that Zammit knows every single magician in the world - a great feat, I might say). The idea that "I guarantee it can never be done" is an overblown confidence and quite reactive on his part. That does not mean therefore that all his work crashes on these complaints; but one has to be careful with attitudes as well.

2. Are you aware that many magicians and their accomplices have confessed to putting on convincing performances like the one you described using nothing but trickery? http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html

Victor: That website would be irrelevant and inadmissible because it states itself ‘TRICKS OF FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS.’ I am not involved with ‘tricks of fraudulent mediums’. There was never an empirically conducted materialization experiment where the mediums used tricks or fraud or deceit. The website given is a narrative, hearsay account of some of the séances and is inadmissible. The narrative, third party writer there does not identify just one specific materialization experiment, let alone just one séance conducted by a scientist.

Fair enough.

The article also concedes that whereas there have been many fraudulent séances, there must have been genuine séances as well. Relating to fraud, the writer of the same article concedes, “… this was not the case with every medium …’ meaning that cheating and fraud did not happen with genuine mediums. My research is strictly empirical. I would be more interested if you cited an example where empiricists, who were able to perceive the paranormal with empirical equanimity, were in control and where they had a gifted materialization medium - and to see what the results were. That you conveniently chose not to report. (See end of article for relevant links on empirical materializations).

Okay.

A repeated fundamental objection by the hard core skeptics is that there is no ectoplasm – that in fact the medium uses ‘cheesecloth.’ Two things I say to that: first, Professor Donald West (Society for Psychical Research U.K.) is on record for seriously suggesting that materialization medium Helen Duncan hid the ‘cheesecloth’ in her anus to fool the sitters. This he stated when he was severely criticizing Helen Duncan’s materialization mediumship chapter 11 of my book www.victorzammit.com (see http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter11.html . “It’s possible” Professor West boasted defiantly, for that to be done. So I challenged this good Professor to demonstrate himself that to me. [size=14pt]I would accordingly challenge Randi or any hard core skeptic who claims that - to show how they can stick long piece of white cheesecloth - the size of a long scarf – then make it appear in form of a human being[/size] – e.g. like Louis Armstrong, then to make it sing “Hello Dolly” in the raspish, deep, resonant voice of Louis Armstrong.

Where's Randi? He likes to throw out $1 million dollars, eh? There's a challenge - free of charge!

. . . continued.

3. Do you know that many magicians take great care to secure themselves to a chair (or in a locked trunk or something) specifically for the purpose of misdirection because their tricks do not depend on them being free?

Victor: Be that as it may, you are obviously implying that the medium has accomplices. I stated and will re-state, that it physically impossible for the genuine materialization mediums such as David Thompson to have had accomplices. With extreme care, I (and others) checked the security for fraud myself and guarantee, with absolute certainty, that it was physically impossible for accomplices to have participated in the materialization experiment.

We would be confident to take the medium to anyplace – [size=14pt]of your choice[/size] - where trapdoors – floors, walls and ceilings do not exist. That the room, floor, walls and ceilings are solid concrete with no windows and only one door which would be secured, sealed and guarded all the time by any independent party. But then, a magician of your choice would have to duplicate the experiment under identical conditions – and when that magician fails, he’s got to hand over half a million dollars to the medium David Thompson (see below).

'Randi'-club, what are you doodling about and wasting time in that challenge?    Is $1 million dollars too much money to hand over to Mr. Thompson? What an audacious challenge that must be from Zammit - and many of us have waited to see Randi take on Zammit and shut his trap! Where's Randi and his super-zealous team?

8. Did you bar all entrances to keep out any accomplices unknown to you?

Victor: (**** see answer to your question 5, above.) Yes, absolutely. As I stated, it is physically impossible for accomplices to enter the room because there are obstacles to open the door. There was only one entrance/exit door. All windows were locked from the inside. There were no trap doors in the ceiling, walls or floor.

Was that "objective" enough?

11.Would you like $1 million US dollars? If you can repeat the events that you described, James Rand will pay you one million dollars. Go to www.randi.org for more information.

Victor: Let me say this first, I have been advising leading psychics in the U.S. and elsewhere not to fall for Randi’s trap. My research into the offer is that it is propaganda, not a genuine offer. I do not consider the $1million dollar challenge to be genuine. First, he is on record for stating to one of the founders of CSICOP, “I will always have a way out (of paying the $1million)”. That speaks volumes; that reveals intention and that is not denied by Randi. That expressly stated intention shows that he is not genuine and will find someway of not paying the $1m. We are on notice Randi is going to do that.

I had complaints from psychics and investigators – Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others, who had great problems communicating with Randi, notwithstanding they acted according to the instructions on his offer. He just does not respond to their correspondence.

[size=16pt]However, David Thompson would take him on but not on the unilateral conditions set by Randi. Among other things, the $1million would have to be deposited with a truly independent stakeholder and on proving the paranormal has taken place, the $1m would have to be handed over to the medium forthwith – no subsequent if’s, but’s, or maybe’s or “let me think about it”.[/size]

[size=14pt]Randi fails to beat my own challenge[/size]

For the record, Randi has not applied to beat my own $1million challenge. He implied he would when my offer first came out on the internet – [size=14pt]some eight years ago[/size]. I am still waiting for him and any of those highly qualified empiricists closed minded skeptics on the East Coast to take me on.

Quite audacious! Now, there. .there. . I hope when atheists begin to sing tunes about Randi they can bear this in mind. Zammit did not throw out that challenge 8 minutes ago - it's been more than 8 YEARS, and Randi's been doodling and crooning to his fawning crowd. Randi's talk is cheap - he should be man enough to take Zammit on!

For the record, I guarantee that paranormal activity is taking place in these below- mentioned materialization experiments. I also state that I shook hands with an entity claiming to be a materialized Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) and state that his hand was solid, and that his voice was inches away from where I was. His answers to my questions were taped. At this stage, we are empirically studying the materialized voices to see if there can be an correlation between the voices of those who materialized and their voices when they were alive on earth. At this stage we only have a prima facie case made out that these materialized etherians are who they claim to be. We will be announcing all empirical results on my website in the future.

The above information is very likely to upset the conservatives because it is questioning entrenched traditional cherished beliefs and values. It is challenging scientific orthodoxy and materialism. It is evidence that consciousness survives physical death.

Follow the above with the credibility below:

EXTERNAL CREDIBILITY OF MATERIALIZATION

The SCOLE EXPERIMENT http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter05.html which is well documented confirms everything David Thompson is doing. The investigators are highly credible scientists, psychologists, lawyer, and other professionals. See below.

[list]

[color=#000099]Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments included Professors David Fontana, Professor Arthur Ellison and Montague Keen. Of course, over the four years and five hundred sittings there were many others who attended as senior scientists and guests in the actual experiments: Dr Hans Schaer a lawyer, Dr Ernst Senkowski, Piers Eggett, Keith Mcquin Roberts, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness - all with scientific or other relevant background and a host of other highly credible witnesses who have had years of experience in dealing with the paranormal. In the United States sessions were also attended by a number of scientists. There were a number of senior scientists from the space agency NASA and others from the Institute of Noetic Sciences[/color] http://www.noetic.org/ near San Francisco as well as representatives from Stanford University.

[/list]

Would you agree with me that these are quite serious claims, huxley2? At least, there's just one way to shut this Zammit up - the honest atheist could easily try to contact such "senior scientists" to corroborate Zammit's claim. I don't know if they already did that - and what are the results?


You see, why I used Zammit's research as an example is not as though there are no other more engaging phenomena that researchers have highlighted or reported. It's rather that Zammit's case is interesting, in that he answers questions seriously and throws out a challenge at the skeptic grandfathers - particularly RANDI. . . and the latter has been doodling for . .  how long? EIGHT YEARS? Does that not tell you anything, huxley2?

Let's go beyond this armchair atheistic . .em. . . em (goodness, there I go again) - let's go beyond this armchair atheistic fallacious logicum and take this discussion to the front door of the typical atheist! I did my home work well enough to tackle the typical objections before drawing just 10 observations about typical atheist arguments. The audacious challenges of these non-religious researchers is yet unapproached by people like Randi et al.

What is happening to the 'typical' Nairaland atheists arguments? I'm still keen on taking this dialogue to your front door and meeting you one-to-one!

@noetic2,

noetic2:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3994373#msg3994373 date=1244463267:

But wait a moment. . . why is it that it's only very few atheists that are in this thread, hmmmm? Apart from Tùdor, huxley2, William_C. . where are the 'typical atheists' on NL?


Just an observation though.

where do u think they are?

All they are waiting for is for huxley to successfully divert the topic to their "comfort zone". . .  u will then see them like cockroaches trooping in.

My prophecy is that they will soon resort to insults. . . . .

Lol, I dey wait for them. I trust huxley2 is being objective so far - but any distractions or diversionary accrobatics will be summarily thrown out. That's how the discussions have proceeded thus far, and that's how it's gonna be.

noetic2:

@Huxley

How very convenient to divert the issue on ground. 5 pages and u are yet to produce ur scientific and intellectual evidences.

how long should I wait?

Hehe. . you dey wait? E go tay before you find answers o!!

Why do you think Zammit would invite these scientist to participate in these seances but when asked to perform under the scrutiny of Randi refuses?

huxley2:

Why do you think Zammit would invite these scientist to participate in these seances but when asked to perform under the scrutiny of Randi refuses?

What exactly are you suggesting about those scientists? Has anyone denied Randi himself participating in such séance to verify things for himself?

The one that amazes me is this:

[list]

I had complaints from psychics and investigators – Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others, who had great problems communicating with Randi, notwithstanding they acted according to the instructions on his offer. He just does not respond to their correspondence.

[/list]
[list]

However, David Thompson would take him on but not on the unilateral conditions set by Randi. Among other things, the $1million would have to be deposited with a truly independent stakeholder and on proving the paranormal has taken place, the $1m would have to be handed over to the medium forthwith – no subsequent if’s, but’s, or maybe’s or “let me think about it”.

[size=14pt]Randi fails to beat my own challenge[/size]

For the record, Randi has not applied to beat my own $1million challenge. He implied he would when my offer first came out on the internet – some eight years ago. I am still waiting for him and any of those highly qualified empiricists closed minded skeptics on the East Coast to take me on.

[/list]

For several years now after Zammit threw out the challenge to Randi et al, why have they not take him on that challenge and cleared all doubts? What is Randi scared of that he has not responded to the correspondence of Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others? If Randi is credible, why has he been dawdling on this matter and yet not braved Zammit's challenge?

pilgrim.1:

What exactly are you suggesting about those scientists? Has anyone denied Randi himself participating in such séance to verify things for himself?

The one that amazes me is this:

[list][/list]
[list][/list]

For several years now after Zammit threw out the challenge to Randi et al, why have they not take him on that challenge and cleared all doubts? What is Randi scared of that he has not responded to the correspondence of Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others? If Randi is credible, why has he been dawdling on this matter and yet not braved Zammit's challenge?

Well, strictly speaking, the onus is NOT on Randi to replicate the results of Zammit & Thompson. There is an infinite number of ways in which Z&T are able to produce the result there get. To expect a challenger to pick the right one out of a sample space of infinity is unreasonable.

Take for instance, the scientists that first discover a new phenomenon or process or entity. Does he/she challenge all other scientist to replicate or reproduce his/her result? NO. On the other hand, they present their methods in professional journal/media for the scientific world to review. That is how objectivity is gained. Any scientist who claims a result but does not expose his method to this level of scrutiny is treated as a crank.

So to follow standard procedure, Z&T ought to submit their methods to scientific scrutineers. The money thing offer by Randi is just an inducement. If I was truly capable of "supernatural" powers, I would submit myself to Randi for absolutely nothing. After all, wouldn't such knowledge be useful to mankind. If I knew of a reliable way of contacting my father who is in the "spirit world" for advice useful to me in this world, I would be all too happy to share that knowledge with the rest of the world FOR FREE.

@huxley2,

Lol, you seem to be making things even more difficult for yourself. But I'll oblige and then seek to contextualize this for you us so that we can move on beyond this stage - I'm receiving indications that the Zammit case is being dragged on longer than necessary.

huxley2:

Well, strictly speaking, the onus is NOT on Randi to replicate the results of Zammit & Thompson. There is an infinite number of ways in which Z&T are able to produce the result there get. To expect a challenger to pick the right one out of a sample space of infinity is unreasonable.

On the contrary, Randi owes much to his fawning crowd - for that his is boasted credential: a 'paranormal-debunker'. He has tried to "replicate" some of the claimed paranormal occurences or operations of some 'paranormalists'; why then is he shying away from this particular challenge? I don't think making excuses for him will do a nice pat on his back. He thinks he has the birthright to set at nought the pain-staking research of people well-versed in their fields; and yet when called upon (even publicly challenged), he has dawdled forever on this case.

huxley2:

Take for instance, the scientists that first discover a new phenomenon or process or entity. Does he/she challenge all other scientist to replicate or reproduce his/her result? NO. On the other hand, they present their methods in professional journal/media for the scientific world to review. That is how objectivity is gained. Any scientist who claims a result but does not expose his method to this level of scrutiny is treated as a crank.

What do you think Zammit is hiding from the public after publishing his findings in a book for the public to read? What do you think other scientists were doing when they rose to the challenge of participating in the séance sessions to see things for themselves? What names were included in Zammit's list? Here again -

Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments:

Professor David Fontana

Professor Arthur Ellison

Montague Keen

Dr Hans Schaer [a lawyer]

Dr Ernst Senkowski

Piers Eggett

Keith Mcquin Roberts

Dr Rupert Sheldrake

Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness

- all with scientific or other relevant background and a host of other highly credible
witnesses who have had years of experience in dealing with the paranormal. In the
United States sessions were also attended by a number of scientists. There were a
number of senior scientists from the space agency NASA and others from the Institute
of Noetic Sciences . .[ ] near San Francisco as well as representatives from
Stanford University.

If people like James Randi are serious, would he claim that anyone prevented him from also attending the séance sessions as these respected names above? Is Randi a science institution all by himself that researchers owe anything to him for verification? The guy is cheap, drop him. It was specifically people like him I had in mind in references to 'dunce' (my apologies, as I don't mean this personally against you). Randi hasn't discharged himself credibly in Zammit's challenge - so who owes Randi any submissions?

huxley2:

So to follow standard procedure, Z&T ought to submit their methods to scientific scrutineers.

And who might that be, precisely - James Randi? Puhleease! I'm not aware of any of the listed names above discrediting Zammit; and if they actually attended the sessions to see things for thmeselves, could other enquirers not do the same?

huxley2:

The money thing offer by Randi is just an inducement.

I'm sorry to say, but that is a huge minus on his part. He ought not to be deceiving the public as if he meant what he was stating in that challenge. This is even more reason why no one owes him anything and should roundly ignore him.

huxley2:

If I was truly capable of "supernatural" powers, I would submit myself to Randi for absolutely nothing. After all, wouldn't such knowledge be useful to mankind.

Don't kid yourself, huxley2. I'll take it for granted that you don't know James Randi. Could I remind you again of what I highlighted? here:
[list]

I had complaints from psychics and investigators – Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others, who had great problems communicating with Randi, notwithstanding they acted according to the instructions on his offer. He just does not respond to their correspondence.

[/list]
Submit however one may, and comply with or act according to the instructions on his offer, he would still not respond credibly. Is that the sort of "scientist" who discharges himself as seeking to establish 'truth' free from bias?

huxley2:

If I knew of a reliable way of contacting my father who is in the "spirit world" for advice useful to me in this world, I would be all too happy to share that knowledge with the rest of the world FOR FREE.

Yes, people are doing that in one way or another - some for a fee that does not reap them net profits. However, let me quickly say here that such is not the raison d'être of my Christian worldview. We have a legitimate claim of the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts, spirits, etc - and it is not just about this world that such knowledge could be useful. The bigger question is this: what is the implication for a naturalist who only discovers such a reality when it's too late? If we left this enquiry to the likes of James Randi et al, are we not flirting with a dangerous gamble?

Please consider these matters carefully, and much regards.

As promised:

pilgrim.1:

. . I'll oblige and then seek to contextualize this for you us so that we can move on beyond this stage

As regards contextualizing such discussions - here's something from the 'Committee for Skeptical Inquiry' on testing the research of Gary E. Schwartz (Ph.D) in these phenomena. Please observe: I do not necessarily agree with most of the article, but as one who's not affected by conclusive bias one way or the other, I'd agree with some of the criteria for testing the claims to the supernatural and paranormal:

[list]
How Not to Test Mediums
Critiquing the Afterlife Experiments

. . .

First, I will list here the major types of flaws in the experiments described
in his first four reports (I will deal with the fifth report separately below):

1. Inappropriate control comparisons
2. Inadequate precautions against fraud and sensory leakage
3. Reliance on non-standardized, untested dependent variables
4. Failure to use double-blind procedures
5. Inadequate "blinding" even in what he calls "single blind" experiments
6. Failure to independently check on facts the sitters endorsed as true
7. Use of plausibility arguments to substitute for actual controls

The preceding list refers to defects in the conduct of the experiments and in the gathering of the data. Other very serious problems appear in the way Schwartz interprets and presents the results of his research. These include:

8. The confusion of exploratory with confirmatory findings
9. The calculation of conditional probabilities that are inappropriate and grossly misleading
10. Creating non-falsifiable outcomes by reinterpreting failures as successes
11. Inflating significance levels by failing to adjust for multiple testing and by
treating unplanned comparisons as if they were planned.

Source: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-01/medium.html
[/list]

I already perused these criteria when selecting Zammit's research. What lent credence to his own case was that he seemed to have scaled or passed them easily, as well provided articulate answers to objections. His boldness to publicly challenge celebrated 'paranormal-debunkers' such as James Randi is also a plus. The calibre of "scientists" who attended the sessions is also noted. Control precuations were not absent or neglected; and avoiding sentionalism in his substance of his report.


I've tried to be genial enough once again to look at things from the perspective of the skeptic rather than from the theist. The advantage in such an approach is to engage the minds and hearts of the atheist in a reasonable manner that would help sustain his interest. Ultimately, I have at the back of my mind that such an honest atheist would be better able to appreciate the fact that there is a reality beyond his naturalism, for which an answer is proffered for the statement: Why I Am Not An Atheist. As a Christian, I've tried to do my homework well enough to engage the atheist at his level; that is why I'm confident to meet the atheist at his own front door and explore his quest for "evidence that shows something beyond his worldview".