Medium's - Real or rubbish?

[the_saint]

Originally Posted by Schism

Without proving anything, neither of them is more likely than the other.

No. Think about it. If you prove one to be true and the other to not be true then how can you continue to talk in terms of probability or likelihood of one being true and the other not being true? You have already proved it and have a definate answer so where does probability come in to it?

Probability is what you use where you don't know something. You look at past examples and all information available to work out the probability of an outcome or explanation.

Think about actuary. Let's use the example of having two people who want insurance for a car. One is an 18 year old, working class male who has 9 points on his license for speeding. The other is a 40 year old, middle class woman who has been driving since she was 17 and has never got a point or been in a crash. Either of them could potentially have a fatal crash, but based on past examples and the information available who should the insurance company consider to be more likely to have a crash?

It's ridiculous to say that without proving anything neither is more likely to have a crash. That is the whole point of probability, it's not about proving things, it's about working out the likelihood or risk of something happening.

One may seem more logical, but not more probable.

But isn't that the point? The more logical it is that something will happen, or a particular explanation will ring true, sure it is more probable that it will happen, or ring true? It may in fact turn out to be disproven, but until that point when we are trying to evaluate the likelihood of something happening isn't what is most logical also what is most probable?

I don't see how someone could consider two events, one of which makes logical sense and the other of which does not, could be both equally probable to occur?

For example, in the Man Utd v Chelsea game tomorrow I am sure you would agree that it is logical to think that Wayne Rooney might score a goal, but illogical to think that he might morph into a talking giraffe halfway through the game and attempt to take over the world by military coup. So are you saying that until the game is over tomorrow both of those events are equally likely to occur, and it is only after the game that we can say which is (or was, as the case will be) more likely to occur?!?! That just seems bizarre to me.

[TEMPLE3188]

I agree with Saint on this (about ghosts), ghosts are not real until facts are proven, simple as that, much like everything else in this world though, such as religion, nothing is fact, it is all fiction, but everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and faith.

I don't disagree with Schism at all, if he has faith that ghosts are real then he is entitled to do so, but you also have to accept that there has been zero factual proof given to prove that your believe is real. It's like trying to prove God is real, it can't be done, yet everyone is entitled to their beliefs, even though the Big Bang theory has proved how the world and we came to be, people still believe that God created everything (Christians), the reason we have such a diversity of religions is because no one can prove it's real, much like ghosts.

I will believe in ghosts when there are proven facts brought to me, not on a belief. Ghosts are nothing but fiction until proven otherwise, these are the facts.

P.S. Mediums are leeching g@y scamming fags taking people's vulnerability for every penny they have.

[Schism]

I think that about Wayne Rooney is a little bit different.

There's no way that you could prove now that he is going to do either, no way of telling the future, but with ghosts someone could pop round your house now and prove they exist.

You're talking about telling the future, not about proving something exists.

[delude]

Originally Posted by Schism

I think that about Wayne Rooney is a little bit different.

There's no way that you could prove now that he is going to do either, no way of telling the future, but with ghosts someone could pop round your house now and prove they exist.

You're talking about telling the future, not about proving something exists.

It is possible to prove that Wayne Rooney will not turn into a giraffe based on what we know about the human body, and how it is 100% impossible.

Who is going to prove that ghosts exist, and how?

[the_saint]

Originally Posted by Schism

There's no way that you could prove now that he is going to do either, no way of telling the future,

It's exactly the same! Going back to the metal ball, at the time you are watching it you can't prove the reason behind it. In working the probability of an explanation you are looking at the probability of a future event i.e. learning of a particular reason behind it.

But that's the point i'm making, you might not be able to prove either but that does not meant they are equally likely. They are plainly not, just like at the time you are watching the metal ball you can't prove either explanation but they are plainly not equally likely.

The whole point of probability is not about proving right and wrong, it is about the likelihood of something as yet unknown or unprovable.

What you are saying is that unless you can prove a particular explanation, or that a particular event will occur, then all explanations or all events are equally likely. Clearly that is not the case.

Think about it. When you you go to school or work or whatever you don't think when you leave the house "hmmm, I can't prove that work will be in the same place as it was yesterday. It could therefore be just as likely that it upped sticks and moved to the moon, so I might as well head off towards the moon". Instead you realise the chances of that happen are so miniscule that you don't even entertain it and go to the same place it was yesterday. To treat every possibility (however crazy or illogical) as equally likely until proved otherwise is ridiculous.

but with ghosts someone could pop round your house now and prove they exist

If someone could do it, why haven't they? There has been so much investigation into ghosts etc but no has ever proved yet, because ghosts don't exist!!!!!

[Schism]

Originally Posted by delude

It is possible to prove that Wayne Rooney will not turn into a giraffe based on what we know about the human body, and how it is 100% impossible.

Who is going to prove that ghosts exist, and how?

Yes but there's a difference between impossible and something that could happen.

[the_saint]

Originally Posted by Schism

Yes but there's a difference between impossible and something that could happen.

How do we know Rooney turning into a giraffe is impossible? It could happen, prove that it couldn't?

You can't.

Why? Because it's very difficult, if not impossible proving a negative (like ghosts don't exist). What can you do is say that the chances of it happen are so small that possibility of it is not even worth thinking about.

[FurbtasticM]

Is a medium really that much different from the people who tell tales of men parting seas or turning water in to wine. That has had people hooked for over 2,000 years and comes with a cost each Sunday!

In either case, if people get something out of it, then who are we to criticise.

[FurbtasticM]

Originally Posted by the_saint

How do we know Rooney turning into a giraffe is impossible?

He can't be, he's already turned into something else:

[the joker]

For me 100% rubbish ... why will they have skills and then they are really funny (those i saw)



maybe real ones are Aliens

[sgll]

yup me too. its all crap and they scam you.. if you believe them then you deserve to have the money taken from you.