(12-29-2013, 11:14 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:(12-29-2013, 08:59 AM)failboat Wrote:(12-29-2013, 08:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:(12-29-2013, 08:23 AM)failboat Wrote:(12-29-2013, 07:37 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote: As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.
Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.
Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.
That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.
you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.
and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.
Sorry, but your explanation regarding extraordinary proof is simply a rehash using more words to claim the same thing.
The claim that something has no basis in reality is simply an empty claim. Ordinary proof determines whether something has a basis in reality or not.
Proof is proof. Convicting someone of murder is a great example of what I mean. There was a case of a man who was convicted of murder simply because some May Fly larvae casings were found on the body when the body was found in the Fall of the same year.
These larvae are seen only in the Spring of the year. The suspect claimed he saw the victim on the 4th of July, a memorable day. The defendant was convicted based on the very ordinary lie and the ordinary existence of the may fly larvae.
The prosecution had no other real evidence, so their claim was extraordinary. The evidence was a lie...a simple lie and some simple life forms.
GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!
their claim would have been extraordinary if they claimed that a psychic saw how the suspect murdered the victim...
but if they found the same may fly larvae on the body of the victim (or at the crime scene) and on the suspect i guess that would have been evidence for him being the murderer. or whatever. lol i don't know the background story nor am i a forensic specialist. :/
The jury did not need to find larvae on the killer, only in the victim. The conviction was based on timing. Had the victim been alive on July 4th, it would have been impossible for May Fly larvae material to be present because the body was found in the Fall too soon for the May Fly larvae to return.
Thus the claim by the killer that he'd seen the victim alive in July was a lie, evidence of a guilty conscience. Simple, ordinary evidence proved an extraordinary claim.
The same requirement for proof applies regardless of the example, whether it be psychic abilities or anything else. No extraordinary proof is required, only ordinary proof because ordinary proof is all there is. There is no such thing as "extraordinary proof" other than in the minds of the cynics who push this mythical canard.
so you don't distinguish between the murderer's claim and paranormal claims?
so you don't distinguish between the following claims?
- i have a pet cat.
- i have a pet dinosaur.