> -----Original Message----- > From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:51 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Oh dear God no..... > > >I did not > >make a claim that it was impossible, just that I'm becoming less > convinced > >of the possibility. > > Semantics, Jim. ;-) And I'm arguing that I don't see this regardless of > whether you consider it opinion or fact.
No- I have to disagree here in the absolute strongest manner possible. The distance between that which we consider fact and that which we consider opinion - that which we believe true and that which are inclined to believe - there's significant difference there. If that difference is not at the heart of what we're talking about I don't know what it. It actually can be very easy to go in one direction: from an inclination to a belief can be remarkably easy, to return is often nearly impossible. When somebody is willing to admit not being sure, that's important, I think. > What research?? Again, it's hard to respect him because he simply does > not properly look at *all* the scientific evidence. Or even the > majority of it. He takes the very few pieces that support what he > thinks and throws out all the rest. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot > support or respect someone that does that and then passes off his I disagree with that contention. How much of his work have you read? Do you have ANY experience with him beyond the Shroud? His work covers several decades and no serious challenge to his credibility has ever been raised to my knowledge. Again I'm fine with not liking him, even his methods (research is contentious field) but to dismiss him completely seems petulant. > >He makes his living as a document analyst and investigator and what > little > >his books bring in. It's a mistake, one that you're not alone in > making, in > >believing that skeptics WANT to debunk everything. Skeptics want > evidence. > > Oh come on, he says himself in interviews that he is the "world's only > full-time, professional, paranormal investigator" and that he's never Do you know of any others? > found something that he couldn't prove as false other than instances > where that simply is not possible (such as UFO sightings). I also find Has there been? > his claim that he is not just out to "debunk" everything hard to > buy...specifically because this is a clear case where he *is* ignoring > a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt that the vast One of the biggest gulfs between skeptics and believers tends to be the quality of evidence that each group will accept. This has actually been a major discussion in the skeptical community recently. In this case I haven't seen any instances where he's ignored evidence. Rather you've stated instances where he's addressed evidence but failed to do so to your satisfaction, or accepted evidence that you (and clearly not he) feel has been properly refuted. I honestly don't see either of one you doing anything that would warrant dismissal: sounds like a healthy debate to me. > >The Shroud is a great example of a "fishy" story. An object appearing > in > >the 14th (a time rife with religious fraud and false artifacts) > century > >claiming miraculous origins? Shouldn't we be skeptical? > > Absolutely. The time frame in terms of its definitive appearance is > most certainly suspect...but hardly proof that it is fake. And again, Again, what's the "fake" here? That's it's simply not as old as we think? Could it simply have been a forgery from the 1st century rather than the 14th? Or is "fake" related only to the connection with Jesus as the son of God? > >There are millions, hundreds of millions of things that we don't > understand > >and can't explain and none of them are particularly threatening to > atheists. > > There is a big difference between things we don't understand...and > things that appear to have paranormal or supernatural causes. Yes... those that appear to have paranormal or supernatural causes must provide extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - it's a cliché, but it's true. There has never been any (not ANY) generally acceptable evidence for any paranormal claim. Ever. So as the search moves farther and farther and fails to produce anything of note the probability of the paranormal becomes less and less likely. And so the burden of proof becomes greater and greater. But other than that there's not much difference, no amount ignorance about anything is evidence for any claim, supernatural or otherwise. Skeptics (at least organized skeptics) just don't consider things in that way. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:250262 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
