Would that I had your common sense and rational logical critical thinking skills, marg. I've so blinded by ignorance and superstition that I had never realized that Dan Vogel actually embraces the supernatural and accepts the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements, and that the Spaulding theory holds water after all. I have so much to learn from you.
EAllusion wrote:Marg - Vogel thinks that reports of Smith's success show his talent for deception. You should be able to glean that from the quote, what with your awesome critical thinking skills and all.
This is perhaps extending the analogy too far, but lots of people report the successes of professional psychics, including theirremote viewing talents. I don't know about you or Nevo, but I don't explain this in terms of real psychic powers. My reasoning isn't based on an out-of-hand a priori dismissal, and I don't think that is an accurate an accurate description of my or Vogel's thoughts on Smith's magical stone. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but that doesn't mean I think it is reasonable to conclude Smith had magic powers.
Roger Morrison wrote:Nevo wrote:Would that I had your common sense and rational logical critical thinking skills, marg. I've so blinded by ignorance and superstition that I had never realized that Dan Vogel actually embraces the supernatural and accepts the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements, and that the Spaulding theory holds water after all. I have so much to learn from you.
My "Blink" on the above: Nevo was being more facetious than complimentary?? If so, very smooth. If not, I'm wrong again :-) Roger
marg wrote:Roger Morrison wrote:Nevo wrote:Would that I had your common sense and rational logical critical thinking skills, marg. I've so blinded by ignorance and superstition that I had never realized that Dan Vogel actually embraces the supernatural and accepts the Book of Mormon witnesses' statements, and that the Spaulding theory holds water after all. I have so much to learn from you.
My "Blink" on the above: Nevo was being more facetious than complimentary?? If so, very smooth. If not, I'm wrong again :-) Roger
Why don't you butt out with your useless comment Roger, he obviously wasn't being complimentary. An idiot can figure that out.
Nevo very clearly understood what Vogel is saying with his quote. He was using Vogel to establish that people were convinced of Smith's treasure finding abilities.marg wrote:
My comment was directed to Nevo and if Nevo is able to glean from Vogel's writings that Smith may indeed have been able to find or locate things with some sort of psychic ability then the problem seems to lie with Vogel's wording such that people like Nevo who wish to interpret or use his writings that way can.
What wonderful critical thinking ability you have EA, you must be so proud of yourself. So with all that you know of J. Smith, the data surrounding Mormonism, data surrounding religious groups; how con men operate, how psychics operate, natural physical laws of the universe... it's good to know you don't dismiss out of hand a priori that perhaps J. Smith did indeed have psychic abilities and that you are so open minded that you leave that possibility open.
I on the other hand do dismiss that J. Smith could actually see hidden things by psychic means, based on all the data I'm aware of. When and if you can overturn my position with some good reasoning and evidence, let me know. Scientists appreciate that some theories are so strong that they are treated as if fact for operating purposes, that is how I view this particular issue.
EAllusion wrote:marg wrote:
My comment was directed to Nevo and if Nevo is able to glean from Vogel's writings that Smith may indeed have been able to find or locate things with some sort of psychic ability then the problem seems to lie with Vogel's wording such that people like Nevo who wish to interpret or use his writings that way can.
Nevo very clearly understood what Vogel is saying with his quote. He was using Vogel to establish that people were convinced of Smith's treasure finding abilities.
You said, "If Dan Vogel believes J. Smith had a seeric gift to find things, then he doesn't reject supernatural. I'm not impressed with Vogel's common sense/rational logical ability..."
The problem is that Vogel quite clearly does not think Smith had "the seeric gift." That borders on obvious from the quote alone.
What wonderful critical thinking ability you have EA, you must be so proud of yourself. So with all that you know of J. Smith, the data surrounding Mormonism, data surrounding religious groups; how con men operate, how psychics operate, natural physical laws of the universe... it's good to know you don't dismiss out of hand a priori that perhaps J. Smith did indeed have psychic abilities and that you are so open minded that you leave that possibility open.
I on the other hand do dismiss that J. Smith could actually see hidden things by psychic means, based on all the data I'm aware of. When and if you can overturn my position with some good reasoning and evidence, let me know. Scientists appreciate that some theories are so strong that they are treated as if fact for operating purposes, that is how I view this particular issue.
Mainstream science is and should open to the possibility that psychic powers like remote viewing are real. That's because mere possibility is a very low bar to meet. It's not self-contradictory, so it is logically possible.
It's also possible in the modal sense. It even isn't in violation of some fundamental property of the known physical universe, so it is reasonable to say it is physically possible.
That doesn't mean there is a preponderance of evidence to believe such a thing exists. There isn't, and it is quite unreasonable to believe you or others have what we normally call "psychic powers."
Saying such a thing is possible is actually extremely trivial and accepted by virtually everyone, which was my point to Nevo.
Now for some hardcore frankness.
Marg, you aren't very bright and - ironically enough - your critical thinking skills aren't that strong. Seeing you condescend Nevo (or Vogel for that matter) is frankly painful to watch. It's especially bad when I have your praise of a poster like JAK in the back of my mind.
Roger Morrison wrote:So, I made a mistake, "wrong again :-)". I misjudged your response, as I read it. I'm sorry you up-set so easily. "...butt out..." "...idiot..." Really??
From an old song, "...getting to know you...getting to know all about you..." Warm regards, Roger
"Carlos" was the name of a 2,000-year-old spirit allegedly channeled by José Alvarez when he toured Australia in 1988. Channeling was all the rage in Australia and an Australian television program contacted James Randi about finding someone who might show Australians that channeling was something doubtful. Randi approached Alvarez, a performance artist and friend who had long toyed with the idea of creating such a character. The rest, as they say, is history. Alvarez
looked at videotapes of other people speaking in strange voices, pretending to be in touch with other worlds, and he picked it up right away. Eventually he went to Australia, took the performance into the Sydney Opera House before a rapt audience there, all handling crystals and beads and whatnot, and with charmed looks on their faces, attracted and enthralled by this man onstage, José Alvarez, doing the Spirit of Carlos that was claimed to be 2,000 years old. His performance was very convincing, and actually better than the "real" chanellers!
However, all of the material that he produced was spurious. In the press releases he invented magazines and newspapers, he invented towns and cities and radio stations and TV channels and whatnot, that didn't even exist. He prepared videos of radio interviews and theater appearances that never happened. And just one phone call by the media back to the United States would have revealed the whole thing as a hoax. Even after it was all revealed on the Australian Sixty Minutes TV show, a week after the Opera House appearance, many continued to believe in "Carlos" and his uninspired messages. (Randi, personal correspondence.)
For Alvarez, the creation of the character "Carlos" was a performance/experiment to see how far he could take his creation, but his purpose was not to make people look foolish. He hoped to liberate them from a false belief. However, the result of the performance seemed to demonstrate how easy it is to create a cult from scratch and how, even when the truth is revealed to them, some still refuse to accept it. The "Carlos" hoax also demonstrated how gullible and uncritical the mass media are when covering paranormal or supernatural topics. Rather than having an interest in exposing the truth, the members of the media were obsessed with "Carlos" the phenomenon and transformed his character from a hoax to a myth. The character Alvarez had so arduously created was transmogrified by the press. The media didn't even need to do any research to have determined that "Carlos" was not genuine. The biggest clue was handed to them on a silver platter: "Carlos" performed for free. He offered crystals from Atlantis for sale, but took orders rather than cash. Every journalist should know that the first sign of an authentic fake guru is greed.
José Alvarez had hoaxed an entire continent with his art. But he had created something that the media and his audiences would take from him and recreate to suit their own needs. One lesson here has to be the magician's refrain: deception requires cooperation. Another lesson might be that the need to believe in something like a "Carlos" is so great in some people that we must despair of them ever being liberated.
Alvarez continues to travel the world performing "Carlos" in a malleable manifestation of his initial "incarnation." He appears on global network TV, and performs before large live audiences, engaging them in discussions regarding gurus and the dangers of passive acceptance of unquestioned belief. His goal? To bring people real enlightenment.
His ongoing exploration of the nature of belief, charisma, and power, and how they intersect, was featured at the 2002 Biennial Exhibition at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York City.
Australian TV on Carlos
See also Aztec UFO hoax, channeling, Bridey Murphy, Cottingly fairy hoax, Arthur Ford hoax, Mary Toft hoax, Piltdown hoax, Pufedorf hoax, Ramtha, Steve Terbot, hoax, and the Sokal hoax.
further reading
* Carlos (requires Real Audio) Studio 360
* Western Project - Jose Alvarez
* WPS1 interview
* Randi Interview with Paul Willis on "The Great Carlos" Hoax
* SWIFT VOL. 2 NO. 3 & 4 1998
Carroll, Robert (2004). "Pranks, Frauds, and Hoaxes from Around the World." Skeptical Inquirer. volume 28, No. 4. July/August, pp. 41-46.
Sagan, Carl. "Carlos," Parade Magazine, December 4, 1994.
marg wrote:
No EA, Nevo was making an argument for more than that. He said "It doesn't require me to keep an open mind about "magic stones." It requires that I be open to the possibility that Joseph actually had visions (a "seeric gift"), that he didn't simply make everything up." So nevo is talking about Smith having quite possibly "actual visions" an "actual seeric gift", in other words some sort of actual psychic ability to detect actual things hidden.
In my words above I say "if". So I'm not basing my criticism of Vogel's reasoning on what Nevo is quoting because I do realize words can be taken out of context.
As I stated previously the problem is Vogel words which because of lack of clarity can be taken to mean that Smith actually did have "seeric ability" which is exactly how Nevo wants the words to be used and the reason he is quoting them.
Frankly EA, you aren't adding value to the argument being made by Nevo. Are we really dealing in the realm of mere possibility. Are you really arguing here that Smith may indeed quite possibly have had actual "seeric ability"? I know your position on it, that you don't think he did, so why are you bothering to talk as if it might have been a possibility. Is this just so you can argue for the sake of it? Your life is that boring is it?
I suspect he might want to appeal to Mormons and the Spalding theory is simply not acceptable in anyway to the church.
He's a moron, a liar, and someone who is quite obviously plagiarizing frequently, usually when he sounds atypically coherent. That'd you'd condescend Nevo - someone who is often a bright, clear thinker - by berating his general "critical thinking skills" while praising someone like JAK is just too much. Yes, I think Nevo is ultimately wrong in his judgment of Mormonism. And yes, I think he makes errors in argument, as demonstrated by my reply to what he said in this thread. That doesn't mean I think your general condescension of his ability to think rationally is appropriate. The problem is that you aren't very strong in the skills you are judging, which robs you of the meta-skill of being able to soundly make those judgments. If you were a better "critical thinker" you wouldn't be doing this.As far as JAK goes he's brilliant.