Bugger

[robinturner]

I got hooked into LJ gossip, drama and cute pictures for so long, I forgot that I have to plan a two-hour lesson for tomorrow, so I'm shutting down my computer. However, I'm not in a state to plan lessons, so I'll just read a bit more about levitation in Voodoo cermenies, sleep and hope I can knock something together in the morning.

Comments

[katminnaar.livejournal.com]

Levitation in voodoo ceremonies??????? *L*

LJ gossip... ick. :^=

[solri.livejournal.com]

Participants who get possessed by loa sometimes get hurled up in the air, which is explainable, and sometimes then get hurled sideways, which is just plain weird.

[katminnaar.livejournal.com]

LOA? Levitation... something? Just how exactly is that supposed to work? I thought theories of actual levitation had been debunked.

[solri.livejournal.com]

A loa is a Voodoo deity. As for debunking, I try to keep an open mind. The fact that people who claim to be able to levitate have been shown to be doing something else does not mean that levitation is impossible, simply unproven at this point. While it is sometimes necessary to debunk those who claim paranormal abilities, the assumption of most so-called sceptics is flawed; i.e. they seem to be asserting that if a result can be achieved by alternative means, then that result can not exist. The same could be said about almost any laboratory result.

I'm not saying that I believe in levitation, merely that I do not disbelieve it. The same goes for telepathy, clairvoyance, astral projection, spoon-bending, superstrings and what have you - they all go into a big bag labelled "interesting things that may possibly exist." There again, sometimes I put myself in that bag.

[katminnaar.livejournal.com]

Oh heck, I try to keep an open mind, too! ...A very skeptical open mind. ;) Actually, I've been working hard to try to keep from labeling everything *paranormal* as just plain superstitious, and sometimes it is just not very easy. However:
they seem to be asserting that if a result can be achieved by alternative means, then that result cannot exist. The same could be said about almost any laboratory result.
...I try not to make those kinds of assumptions, if I can help it. I'm not sure what kind of alternative means you're referring to when it comes to laboratory results (like what, blood work?).

I like the 'interesting things that may possibly exist' explanation. :) I've certainly experienced some strange moments in my life that I can't explain, so I'm open to the possibility of clairvoyance. As far as deities, I suppose agnostic comes closest to describing a lack of belief, but not utter & complete disbelief. I do think there are still phenomena that our current science is unable to explain/classify/duplicate (obviously), and it's very difficult for me to walk that tightrope of wanting to KNOW for sure, to either debunk or accept one way or the other. I just have a hard time accepting some things without credible evidence.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what kind of alternative means you're referring to when it comes to laboratory results (like what, blood work?).
Let's imagine someone like James Randi, a "sceptic" and former stage magician, whose challenge to psychics, occultists, parapsychologists is to produce an effect he couldn't reproduce using stage magic. The problem is that a good stage magician is trained to produce the illusion of just about anything - that's why they are also called illusionists. Now let's imagine a chemist demonstrating some simple chemical reaction; dropping copper into a beaker of sulphuric active to produce a blue copper sulphate solution, for example. The Amazing Randi brings out his magic beaker, drops copper into what is actually water, and does some sleight of hand to turn the water blue. "Look," he says, "it's just a trick!"

The test in science is not whether someone can produce the same result by different means, but whether using the same means produces the same result. Even so, they don't have to get the same result 100% of time; there's a large latitude for "experimental error". The problem is that it is very hard to set up experiments for reproducing fringe phenenomena.

[katminnaar.livejournal.com]

Okay, it's clear that ILLUSIONISTS cannot be trusted. :) They're not looking for any "truth" nor are they actually scientists. I think I understand the mechanism of scientific validation, btw. ;)

Maybe our science or technology just hasn't advanced enough to be able to measure or experiment on these 'fringe phenonema.' Perhaps someday it will.

[asteriskhere.livejournal.com]

As for debunking, I try to keep an open mind. The fact that people who claim to be able to levitate have been shown to be doing something else does not mean that levitation is impossible, simply unproven at this point. While it is sometimes necessary to debunk those who claim paranormal abilities, the assumption of most so-called sceptics is flawed; i.e. they seem to be asserting that if a result can be achieved by alternative means, then that result can not exist. The same could be said about almost any laboratory result.
I'm not saying that I believe in levitation, merely that I do not disbelieve it. The same goes for telepathy, clairvoyance, astral projection, spoon-bending, superstrings and what have you - they all go into a big bag labelled "interesting things that may possibly exist." There again, sometimes I put myself in that bag.

I agree with you 100% on this.

I saw Uri Geller up-close (really close) and in person, and the stuff he did seemed to be real enough, but it very well could have been some kind of illusion. Most of my friends think he's a fraud, but I think he may be a fraud or he may not be. He did this seed-sprouting thing that sure as hell looked real to me, and he held it right in front of my face as it was sprouting. But he did engage in a lot of lively behavior that probably could be considered distractive behavior to scatter our attention. So who knows.