Announcement

Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Looking for Carroll Beckwith; A detective's search for his past life.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post

    If you continue to insist that you do not understand my points, no amount of additional chit-chat is going to help.


    ~~ Paul
    Why can't you just put it in the form of an argument with the increase in
    pages as a premise?

    Even though I don't agree with most of the points you've made, at least I can
    understand why THEY ARE points.
    Such is not the case with this one.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
      So what?
      So he didn't use the method you're suggesting.
      Because he didn't use the method you're suggesting, you can't
      use the method he used as part of an argument that says "see? He used
      his diary then! Why not employ similar means before?"
      What? You're saying he can use his mental image of the painting to confirm that Beckwith's painting in New Orleans is the correct one, but he cannot use any of the other information about the artist that he stated during hypnosis and then recorded in the list of 28 items? Why?
      He could have used both, but if he did then I don't think
      your point is relevant since it presupposes the idea that there
      is another painting of a hunchback woman which is completely identical
      to that of Beckwith's.

      He still had to use the painting first and then the autobiographical information though.

      Picture this short bio next to the painting in New Orleans:

      Painter: James "Jack" Carroll Beckwith
      September 23, 1852 October 24, 1917
      studied in New York and Paris

      And now Snow can verify about five of his statements in addition to seeing the painting of the hunchback.
      Right, but then he would have included the fact that the picture wasn't
      identical in his book.
      But he did just the opposite, it was so identical as to send shivers down his
      spine.
      Oh, and by the way, if I recall correctly he had to ask someone who the
      painter was.
      It always has been. I'm just not willing to assume that just because he's a detective he's also perfectly honest and perfectly logical.
      I don't think it makes him a paragon of virtue either, but it's important to
      note that bad cops don't often evince their vices by writing false
      reincarnation stories.

      Because they are not as specific as proper names, street addresses, telephone numbers, pet names, employer names, and so forth. But this is a minor point. Perhaps his detective skills had nothing to do with it.
      Wow.
      That's one amazing unconscious mind Snow must have to make these
      considerations.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by majinrevan
        So he didn't use the method you're suggesting.
        Because he didn't use the method you're suggesting, you can't
        use the method he used as part of an argument that says "see? He used
        his diary then! Why not employ similar means before?"
        You're really making this difficult. How do you know that he didn't use some biographical information to match the painting?

        He could have used both, but if he did then I don't think
        your point is relevant since it presupposes the idea that there
        is another painting of a hunchback woman which is completely identical
        to that of Beckwith's.
        You're the one doing the presupposing here: You are assuming that his unrecorded mental image of the painting exactly matched the unobtainable image on Beckwith's painting. You just keep assuming this even though we have no way of knowing.

        It may be that he used both the image and biographical information to select Beckwith's painting from among all the hunchback paintings he investigated.

        He still had to use the painting first and then the autobiographical information though.
        Why?

        Right, but then he would have included the fact that the picture wasn't
        identical in his book.
        But he did just the opposite, it was so identical as to send shivers down his
        spine.
        Okay, so now we have to trust his reaction and also assume he knew nothing about Beckwith beforehand.

        Oh, and by the way, if I recall correctly he had to ask someone who the
        painter was.
        Not even the painter's name was displayed with the painting? What sort of art gallery is that?

        Wow.
        That's one amazing unconscious mind Snow must have to make these
        considerations.
        He was under hypnosis, being asked to recall details about former lives. If he had no former lives, then we wouldn't expect specific details. We'd expect vague details dredged up from memories of this lifetime. On the other hand, if he was Beckwith in a former life, why not recall a bunch of specific details? Does a reincarnated person have trouble with specific details from a former life, just like ghosts have trouble giving specific details to psychics? Maybe so.

        ~~ Paul

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
          You're really making this difficult. How do you know that he didn't use some biographical information to match the painting?
          I don't "know".
          I just think that it's a bad way to go about it.
          I have no reason to believe he did so.

          You're the one doing the presupposing here: You are assuming that his unrecorded mental image of the painting exactly matched the unobtainable image on Beckwith's painting. You just keep assuming this even though we have no way of knowing.
          This is how he describes it in the book.
          If I can't trust what he wrote in the book, then I might as well
          doubt the whole thing, including the fact that he even had a regression.
          It may be that he used both the image and biographical information to select Beckwith's painting from among all the hunchback paintings he investigated.
          If you find such a method questionable and equal to an audience like cold
          reading, why do you think he wouldn't?

          Why?
          Because he looked for the painting, not the items.


          Okay, so now we have to trust his reaction and also assume he knew nothing about Beckwith beforehand.
          The question about his knowledge of Beckwith is a separate one.
          If he had seen the painting before, other than in the regression, the
          story falls apart anyway.
          Not even the painter's name was displayed with the painting? What sort of art gallery is that?
          I just checked.
          He saw the painting, became stunned, someone approached him, he casually
          asked whose painting it was, the man told him, he then saw the signature
          of Beckwith's somewhere.
          He was under hypnosis, being asked to recall details about former lives. If he had no former lives, then we wouldn't expect specific details. We'd expect vague details dredged up from memories of this lifetime. On the other hand, if he was Beckwith in a former life, why not recall a bunch of specific details? Does a reincarnated person have trouble with specific details from a former life, just like ghosts have trouble giving specific details to psychics? Maybe so.

          I don't know why certain people don't remember certain things while under regression.
          It's important to point out that children DO remember their names and DO remember their former address.(speaking of which, didn't you buy Jim Tucker's book?)
          Same goes for several regression patients, Newton's patients for instance.
          ~~ Paul[/QUOTE]

          Comment


          • #95
            Well, as is often the case, it comes down to whether we implicitly trust everything the storyteller says. If we trust every detail then reincarnation is the only answer, because the story is crafted as a demonstration of reincarnation. We aren't given enough information to form our own conclusions; we are led through the story by the author who has already made up his mind. The primary piece of evidence, the painting, isn't even available.

            Hey, do we know the name of the painting?

            ~~Paul

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by majinrevan
              speaking of which, didn't you buy Jim Tucker's book?
              Yes, I have a copy. I'm trying mightily to read it, but the history of the IBM System/360 is much more interesting. I just ordered a copy of Snow's book, too.

              ~~Paul

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
                Well, as is often the case, it comes down to whether we implicitly trust everything the storyteller says. If we trust every detail then reincarnation is the only answer, because the story is crafted as a demonstration of reincarnation. We aren't given enough information to form our own conclusions; we are led through the story by the author who has already made up his mind. The primary piece of evidence, the painting, isn't even available.
                Well, I agree about the former part, but I'm not too worried about the painting.
                Snow could have just picked a different painting of Beckwith's or anyone
                else's if he had deceptive intentions.

                Hey, do we know the name of the painting?
                Hmm, not to my knowledge.
                "The Hunchback Woman" would be a safe bet.

                Yes, I have a copy. I'm trying mightily to read it, but the history of the IBM System/360 is much more interesting. I just ordered a copy of Snow's book, too.
                Ah, ok.
                That should clarify a few details for you better than I could.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
                  You're not multiplying the probabilities, right? That only works if the events are independent. Also, what do you think the probability means?

                  Remember that he got 16 wrong. And number 17 should have probability 1.

                  ~~ Paul
                  Definition of probability: (Statistics) A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.

                  Event
                  A and B = P(A) x P(B)
                  A given B = P(A)and(B) / P(B)

                  I'm curious. How do you consider the events to be not independent, or correlated? Please give enough examples to seriously reduce the overall cumulative probability to less than 1 in a million (10**6).

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by majinrevan666 View Post
                    Could you calculate it again while removing 1 and considering 16 false?
                    1 doesn't count and 16 turned out false. (Which actually lends to the strength
                    of the case, since the one detail he was just guessing turned out as false)
                    Originally posted by majinrevan666 View Post
                    Could you calculate it again while removing 1 and considering 16 false?
                    1 doesn't count and 16 turned out false. (Which actually lends to the strength
                    of the case, since the one detail he was just guessing turned out as false)
                    1. N/A (no effect)
                    16. False (?, certainly <1, at least as small as .01)


                    Net effect 10**-21 x 10**8 = 10**-13

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by nbtruthman
                      I'm curious. How do you consider the events to be not independent, or correlated? Please give enough examples to seriously reduce the overall cumulative probability to less than 1 in a million (10**6).
                      The non-independence is the least of your problems. What do you think the probability actually means? Please give a precise statement of what it means.

                      When I get home I'll post a partial list of non-independent items.

                      ~~Paul

                      Comment


                      • Items that are obviously not independent:

                        2, 5

                        7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28

                        9, 14, 17

                        19, 20, 21


                        ~~ Paul

                        Comment


                        • nbtruthma, could you explain your working properly, such as your source(s)? I'm especially interested to know your thinking behind the blood clot guess. And also how did you factor in a wrong guess? Thanks.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ersby View Post
                            nbtruthma, could you explain your working properly, such as your source(s)? I'm especially interested to know your thinking behind the blood clot guess. And also how did you factor in a wrong guess? Thanks.
                            As you can see, I just did off the top of the head guesses while trying to be conservative, based on common sense, not having the time to do extensive research. I invite corrections.

                            Question number probability of being due to chance

                            1 .00001 How many possible visible deformities might there be?
                            2 ? Threw this out (P = 1)
                            3 .25 4 possibilities (spring, summer, fall, winter)
                            4 .33 3 possibilities (small, medium, large)
                            5 .25 4 possibilities (17th, 18th, 19th, 20th)
                            6 .1 How many possible countries? Very conservative
                            7 ? Threw out (P = 1)
                            8 .5 Either hated it or liked it (conservative number of possible choices)
                            9 .3 Maybe should have been .5 (either needed or didn't need the money)
                            10 .5 Yes or no
                            11 .01 Very conservative - assume only 100 possible common names
                            12 .001 How many possible common prosthetic appliances x use or not use. Maybe this was too small, should have been .01.
                            13 .3 Did he drink or not, and what kind of alcohol? Very conservative
                            14 .3 No need, some need, desperate need
                            15 .001 ?, must be small.
                            16 .00001 How many different sounding common women's first names?
                            17 .01 How many things to argue about?
                            18 .2 How many common instruments to play?
                            19 .5 Yes or no
                            20 .1 Should have been maybe .9
                            21 .5 Likelihood that couple was happy
                            22 .5 Fairly probable for an artist
                            23 .01 How many things could come with a large estate?
                            24 .1 How many common illnesses could lead to death? 10?
                            25 .25 Yes, no or somewhere inbetween
                            26 .5 Yes or no for all painters
                            27 .5 " " " " " "
                            28 .1 Think about it

                            Comment


                            • I see. Well, obviously some are wrong. You've given aprobability to number 1, but this is the guess that identifies Carroll Beckwith, and everything else should fit with that, so it shouldn't have a probability at all. Some don't make sense at all. Take the (by now infamous) statement about drinking wine. Are you seriously suggesting that the chance of a married couple arguing about money is 1%?

                              And you haven't explained how you factored in a wrong guess. Did you just leave it out? That means the the probability would get increasingly smaller, whether the guesses are wrong or not. In short, your numbers are wrong and your sums are wrong.
                              Last edited by Ersby; November 29th, 2009, 05:48 AM.

                              Comment


                              • And you aren't taking into account that there are clusters of non-independent items.

                                ~~ Paul

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X