FabSwingers.com forum: Coincidence Literature to Debunk Cosmic Forces Bollocks

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

Hi guys. Can anyone make any recommendations for books that deal with coincidence. I'm having regular debates with my son (24 years old) about his belief that cosmic forces influence or guide our lives, which to me is nothing but self-comforting delusion.

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gets them through this thing we call life – just don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – I regularly hear plenty of the former and (obviously) zilch of the latter.

Anyway, fuel was added to his fire when I bumped into some my favourite musical artists on a B'ham city centre street (Saturday 25th), which later resulted in both my son and I going to the gig they were putting on that night; copious amounts of liqour, selfies and vids with the guys ensued. To him, 'forces were at play' to bring this together. To me, it's just probability at play: I live in the city and I'm obsessed with the artists in question ... hence, I was in proximity to them and was able to pick them out in a crowd. That's all there is to it!

I've explained this to my son but he can't take the 'randomness' of it.

I'm thinking a book or two on coincidence and/or probability – particularly, coming from a cosmic force-sky fairy-wackadoodle-quasi-religious DEBUNKING viewpoint – might straighten him out.

Thanks in advance … and may the force be with you.

TJ.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why debunk it? Can’t you both be right without trying to change the others perception?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I dunno, thats sounds a bit more than just conincidence to me

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I dunno, thats sounds a bit more than just conincidence to me

However it's spelt

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

[Removed by poster at 28/08/18 12:15:14]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?"

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *VineMan
over a year ago

The right place

Just don’t give him any money and tell him it’s for a reason.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just don’t give him any money and tell him it’s for a reason. "

. Evil!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *adame BWoman
over a year ago

C'est moi Boudoir

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be. "

Op I am sure at 24 you didn't agree with everything your parents said either. Right of passage to form your own ideas and beliefs and they won't be in line with everybody else's. Why not pat him on the back and let go of your need to be right. As adults we are allowed to be different in our outlook and beliefs. He is your son not your soldier.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be. "

Delusion is simply the state of believing in something that isn't true. Something isn't true until proven to be so. There is no evidence for cosmic forces; that's why my analogy remains sound.

It's actually my son that's doing the pushing, I'm merely responding. Coincidence is provable. The situation is quite adequately explained as coincidence, without the need for un-evidenced claims. The other things you listed are unprovable, I agree. But given that I'm an evidence-led rather than a belief-led person, they hold little value for me. If it's provable, I'll give it my time, if not - I won't. But if someone is trying to convince me of something they can't verify, with respect, I'm allowed to respond.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Just don’t give him any money and tell him it’s for a reason. "

Lol, an excellent suggestion!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be.

This is actually, a quite light-hearted tussle that we're having and both enjoying, actually.

So thanks for the advice on resisting the urge to browbeat my son, but that's not really the vibe. And, as I've stated elswhere - this is really my son's 'thing': any halfway significant situation is followed by 'So doesn't that change your perception then Dad? Are you gonna say that THAT'S just a coincidence too?' and such likes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Lol, just agree with him and watch his face

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Lol, just agree with him and watch his face

I actually tried that last night but I couldn't keep a straight face!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Lol, just agree with him and watch his face

I actually tried that last night but I couldn't keep a straight face!"

Something for you to work on

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *adame BWoman
over a year ago

C'est moi Boudoir

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be.

This is actually, a quite light-hearted tussle that we're having and both enjoying, actually.

So thanks for the advice on resisting the urge to browbeat my son, but that's not really the vibe. And, as I've stated elswhere - this is really my son's 'thing': any halfway significant situation is followed by 'So doesn't that bachange your perception then Dad? Are you gonna say that THAT'S just a coincidence too?' and such likes."

Ahhh good to hear that, I didn't get the light hearted banter from the op

Bantering with our adult children is brilliant they are such wind up merchants

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Hi guys. Can anyone make any recommendations for books that deal with coincidence. I'm having regular debates with my son (24 years old) about his belief that cosmic forces influence or guide our lives, which to me is nothing but self-comforting delusion.

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gets them through this thing we call life – just don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – I regularly hear plenty of the former and (obviously) zilch of the latter.

I've explained this to my son but he can't take the 'randomness' of it.

I'm thinking a book or two on coincidence and/or probability – particularly, coming from a cosmic force-sky fairy-wackadoodle-quasi-religious DEBUNKING viewpoint – might straighten him out.

Thanks in advance … and may the force be with you.

TJ."

Live long and prosper....dash

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The blind watchmaker deals with coincidence luck and chance.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – I regularly hear plenty of the former and (obviously) zilch of the latter."

Unfortunately "coincidence theory" is itself an extraordinary claim that lacks extraordinary evidence. Hence why there are no books written on it. Among other things it argues that the universe came into existence by coincidence, originated life by coincidence, originated self awareness by coincidence, etc. It's really rather a silly point of view for those gullible enough or lacking in imagination. So your boy is showing real promise

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *horecruxCouple
over a year ago

SE4

Bleak

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Unfortunately, it's no more wackadoodle than any religion. He'll take the old apologetics line that you can't prove that cosmic forces don't exist and all you can do is stick to Occam's Razor and point out that the simplest explanation is far more likely.

You could try asking how he determined that these cosmic forces exist and how it's possible to investigate them.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Previously evolution was thought to be a completely random series of events. However, mathematicians have proved that there has not been enough time in our planet's existence for us to get to this point purely by chance.

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Your standpoint is one of belief (or disbelief if you prefer). So it is no different from someone else saying cosmic forces are at work.

From a certain point of view it could be said that coincidence can only be possible due to an infinitesimally unlikely number of incidents actually occurring to achieve what just happened... all the time! And it kinda makes my head spin when I try to rationalise that this is all just something that will keep happening with no omniscient and all encompassing entity's involvement (as I am also far too cynical to allow myself to believe in anything that could possibly wish this world to be as it is).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Previously evolution was thought to be a completely random series of events. However, mathematicians have proved that there has not been enough time in our planet's existence for us to get to this point purely by chance.

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is."

Science is the best method we have to investigate the universe.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

Science is the best method we have to investigate the universe. "

But it can't be used to explain everything.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

Science is the best method we have to investigate the universe. "

True there is no better tool.

Regarding chance and evolution .In an infinite universe everything is possible.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

Science is the best method we have to investigate the universe.

True there is no better tool.

Regarding chance and evolution .In an infinite universe everything is possible."

Flaming hot non existent ice chatting about John Nettles acting career for 1,000,000 years solid with witty violently pacifist non-sentient intelligent legless centipedes? Is that possible too?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

But it can't be used to explain everything."

Yet. There are some things that we don't yet know the answer to. Assuming an explanation because you can't think of anything else will always be logically fallacious.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is."

Also anyone who says that natural selection occurs by pure chance, doesn't understand it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rsTrellisWoman
over a year ago

Cambridge

Bad Science is a really good book. It talks about coincidence and conformation bias.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *alking HeadMan
over a year ago

Bolton

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gets them through this thing we call life – just don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – I regularly hear plenty of the former and (obviously) zilch of the latter.

I've explained this to my son but he can't take the 'randomness' of it.

I'm thinking a book or two on coincidence and/or probability – particularly, coming from a cosmic force-sky fairy-wackadoodle-quasi-religious DEBUNKING viewpoint – might straighten him out.

Thanks in advance … and may the force be with you.

TJ."

There was an episode of QI which contained just this sort of spurious nonsense. Mr Fry delighted his audience with ridiculous reports of how the sales of a particular brand of cat food was directly proportional to tyre blowouts on hgvs (and other such palpable wholly disconnected statistics).

I'm sure there is a book about it, if there is, it might just point out to him that correlation and coincidence are not always causality.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gets them through this thing we call life – just don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – I regularly hear plenty of the former and (obviously) zilch of the latter.

I've explained this to my son but he can't take the 'randomness' of it.

I'm thinking a book or two on coincidence and/or probability – particularly, coming from a cosmic force-sky fairy-wackadoodle-quasi-religious DEBUNKING viewpoint – might straighten him out.

Thanks in advance … and may the force be with you.

TJ.

I'm sure there is a book about it, if there is, it might just point out to him that correlation and coincidence are not always causality."

And the classic one that global warming is caused by a drop in the numbers of pirates.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

All my life experience is that all events have strictly naturalistic causes. I suppose it's possible that there is some mysterious supernatural entity controlling everything, but as any such entity manifests itself purely in natural ways, nothing is added to naturalistic explanations by assuming it.

Occams razor strikes again.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Your standpoint is one of belief (or disbelief if you prefer). So it is no different from someone else saying cosmic forces are at work.

These words: 'a chance occurrence of events remarkable either for being simultaneous or for apparently being connected' describe what a coincidence is. This is, therefore, a known phenomenon that makes no assumptions that require further evidence, that's accepted by rational people as a true part of our universe/world.

There is no evidence for the existence of cosmic forces. That's why the two beliefs are different. I don't disagree with the rest of your contribution but this idea that all beliefs are equal is a cop out, with respect. The claim of the existence of cosmic forces is baseless, as the believer cannot explain where the cosmic force itself comes from. The existence of a cosmic force, god, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, all make assumptions that require explanations, Coincidence carries no assumption. Please refer to Occam's Razor, a principle borne out by mathematics: the solution which carries the least assumptions tends to be the most accurate one.

I think that if you're predisposed to believe in such things you will; you'll always see what isn't there. For example, when you think about someone and then the phone rings and it's them! Yes, a person can tell themselves how wonderfully mystical that was, if they like, but what about all the times they didn't call when thought of? Were the cosmic forces just having a rest from all that highly important dibbling and dabbling in these cosmically significant human beings' lives?

As for not wishing 'this world to be as it is' .. it is getting better all the time. May I recommend Factfulness by Hans Rosling?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

Also anyone who says that natural selection occurs by pure chance, doesn't understand it."

Evolution and natural selection are two different things.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is."

No serious evolutionist believes that evolution comes about 'purely by chance' anyway. Natural selection and sexual selection are the non-random, filtering process that certain people like to forget to mention in such discussions ... or maybe they're unaware ...?

And I'll take your mention of The Holy Grail as irony, sir.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"The blind watchmaker deals with coincidence luck and chance."

I salute you for being the first person to actually recommend a book!

I forgot about The Blind Watchmaker, read it several years ago ... will re-visit. Cheers.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

And I'll take your mention of The Holy Grail as irony, sir.

Not now, no, but it was thought to be until quite recently.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Bad Science is a really good book. It talks about coincidence and conformation bias. "

Thank you, I'll search for that now.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be. "

If you are on either side of the international date line,you can be inches away from someone who is 24 hours behind you. So that isn't neccesarily delusional based on where you are viewing the facts from.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The existence of a cosmic force, god, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc, all make assumptions that require explanations, Coincidence carries no assumption. Please refer to Occam's Razor, a principle borne out by mathematics: the solution which carries the least assumptions tends to be the most accurate one. "

That's why I prefer to believe that, in the few seconds before I was born, a vast random mess of particles accidentally aligned into forming our world as it is. It's a much simpler explanation of everything as it doesn't require the existence of any Romans or dinosaurs or anything. Indeed, there's no need to believe in any of all that messy complicated unbelievable history stuff. The atoms just accidentally took a form that looks as if history occurred.

It requires no extra explanations, carries the fewest assumptions, and is entirely naturalistic. Good old Occam eh!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

Science is the best method we have to investigate the universe.

True there is no better tool.

Regarding chance and evolution .In an infinite universe everything is possible.

Flaming hot non existent ice chatting about John Nettles acting career for 1,000,000 years solid with witty violently pacifist non-sentient intelligent legless centipedes? Is that possible too?

Given infinite time and random input then all possible outcomes will happen.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

It requires no extra explanations, carries the fewest assumptions, and is entirely naturalistic. Good old Occam eh!

Class.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gets them through this thing we call life – just don't expect me to take you seriously if you can't back up your claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – I regularly hear plenty of the former and (obviously) zilch of the latter.

I've explained this to my son but he can't take the 'randomness' of it.

I'm thinking a book or two on coincidence and/or probability – particularly, coming from a cosmic force-sky fairy-wackadoodle-quasi-religious DEBUNKING viewpoint – might straighten him out.

Thanks in advance … and may the force be with you.

TJ."

Carl Jung didn't believe in coincidences.

Just saying

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because something can't be proved scientifically doesn't mean that it's not true. Science is not the Holy Grail scientists wish you to believe it is.

And I'll take your mention of The Holy Grail as irony, sir.

Not now, no, but it was thought to be until quite recently."

Evolution theory didn't work until the theory of genetic mutations came to its rescue. Whilst natural selection is shaped by environmental pressures, I think it's fair to say that many evolutionists still hold to the hope that genetic mutations are random. But there is growing evidence they're not. So rules to evolution are slowly emerging. And we all know what rules mean don't we! Rules mean rule makers! Yay! So the great god killing argument is finally making space for a god

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be.

Delusion is simply the state of believing in something that isn't true. Something isn't true until proven to be so. There is no evidence for cosmic forces; that's why my analogy remains sound.

What is a fact? Something that is tested to be proven and remains so until proven otherwise. So you could actually determine it as a tested theory, as opposed to fact. In time, untested theories may also be proven. So, my succinct response is "don't be an arse to your son" - of course, you being an arse is at the untested theory stage

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Can we BOTH be right? I appreciate the sentiment. However, if person A acknowledges that today is Tuesday and person B believes that it's Saturday, they can't both be right can they?

That would be delusional - to believe it’s one day when it’s actually another.

But believing things happen for a reason, coincidence, karma, universal forces etc is not something which is provable either way. Let him be.

This is actually, a quite light-hearted tussle that we're having and both enjoying, actually.

So thanks for the advice on resisting the urge to browbeat my son, but that's not really the vibe. And, as I've stated elswhere - this is really my son's 'thing': any halfway significant situation is followed by 'So doesn't that bachange your perception then Dad? Are you gonna say that THAT'S just a coincidence too?' and such likes.

Ahhh good to hear that, I didn't get the light hearted banter from the op

Bantering with our adult children is brilliant they are such wind up merchants "

They just think they are - but we have had more practice at it. My "arse" comment was def banter

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

" My "arse" comment was def banter

Glad you cleared that up for me.

Yes, I could view these claims as unproven or untested theories. But what we're talking about are unprovables. There are good theories and bad, scientific and non-scientific. Scientific theories are testable, verifiable and ideally will contain predictive power. Such theories will therefore advance the human cause in measurable, real world ways, which is ONE reason why I prefer them over wish-thinking theories. So, I'll stick to the scientific theories. Cheers, though ...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As for not wishing 'this world to be as it is' .. it is getting better all the time. May I recommend Factfulness by Hans Rosling?

Oh, there is no cop out on my part. It's merely my opinion.

And it wasn't me wishing the world to be any way either.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

As for not wishing 'this world to be as it is' .. it is getting better all the time. May I recommend Factfulness by Hans Rosling?

Oh, there is no cop out on my part. It's merely my opinion.

And it wasn't me wishing the world to be any way either. "

Alright then.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Depends whether you take the red pill or the blue pill as to what you believe is right or wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" My "arse" comment was def banter

Glad you cleared that up for me.

I was thinking on the lines of scientific theories! My point still stands.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

" My "arse" comment was def banter

Glad you cleared that up for me.

I was thinking on the lines of scientific theories! My point still stands."

Erm, my point was that if a theory's not verifiable, testable or containing predictive power, then it's not a scientific theory. Unprovable theories like the benevolent comsic entities at the heart of this discussion, do not satisfy these factors, so they are non-scientific. I should've made that clearer.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ilancsguyMan
over a year ago

Burnley

There are so many things that science cannot explain - maybe one day it will but until then there will be many different viewpoints who individually all believe they are right and others are wrong.

Each to their own if you ask me.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" My "arse" comment was def banter

Glad you cleared that up for me.

I was thinking on the lines of scientific theories! My point still stands.

Erm, my point was that if a theory's not verifiable, testable or containing predictive power, then it's not a scientific theory. AS YET Unprovable theories like the benevolent comsic entities at the heart of this discussion, do not YET satisfy these factors, so they are non-scientific AT PRESENT. I should've made that clearer."

FTFY

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

" My "arse" comment was def banter

Glad you cleared that up for me.

I was thinking on the lines of scientific theories! My point still stands.

FTFY

Oh, that's cool. It's like, AS YET, I don't have rainbow-coloured, chess-playing mice living under my bed. AT THE MOMENT, that is .. must stress that bit.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" My "arse" comment was def banter

Glad you cleared that up for me.

I was thinking on the lines of scientific theories! My point still stands.

FTFY

Oh, that's cool. It's like, AS YET, I don't have rainbow-coloured, chess-playing mice living under my bed. AT THE MOMENT, that is .. must stress that bit.

You're not up for scientific advances then? Once upon a time classic physicists didn't appreciate quantum physics because it didn't follow the rules of testing scientific theories. The status quo of science in the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st is exactly not the status quo! It has evolved.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

...and will continue to evolve.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The blind man locked in a dungeon uses science to examine his surroundings. From it he deduces that reality consists of walls, ceilings, floors and doors. Limiting himself to this knowledge, he extrapolates that wherever he goes, in every direction, reality will be the same. It will consist of a vast and endless series of prison cells. And he imagines, from this, that he has come to a complete and correct view of reality and how it came to be.

This is the myopia that comes when philosophical inspiration and insight is lacking in a person and they look up to the stars and instead of having their mind's blown and recognising the true depth of the problem ahead of science, just see an endless void of prison cells... supposedly already explained by science... in lieu of the actual explanation... which shall be forthcoming in due time... and shall be mundane enough to fit within their prison cell thinking.

The op wants to find a book to disenchant his son so that his thinking can be more myopic, his view of the universe and our life in it more pointless, his philosophical curiosity blunted and diverted into fighting windmills. Pretty much anything by Richard Dawkins should suffice. It's just such a shame that such myopia is so contagious in people who don't really grasp the true wonder *and limitations* of science

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"You're not up for scientific advances then? Once upon a time classic physicists didn't appreciate quantum physics because it didn't follow the rules of testing scientific theories. The status quo of science in the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st is exactly not the status quo! It has evolved.

...and will continue to evolve."

At no point did I say that I'm against the evolution of science. When the evidence comes in, I'll believe it. Till then, you can.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

...and will continue to evolve.

At no point did I say that I'm against the evolution of science. When the evidence comes in, I'll believe it. Till then, you can."

That's very generous of you to believe something when it's proven.

Do you believe the moon exists? And other proven things? Not a big gambling guy up for the odd hunch or two are you haha

Still... I'd put big money on you believing dark matter exists even though there's no evidence for it yet

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"The blind man locked in a dungeon uses science to examine his surroundings. From it he deduces that reality consists of walls, ceilings, floors and doors. Limiting himself to this knowledge, he extrapolates that wherever he goes, in every direction, reality will be the same. It will consist of a vast and endless series of prison cells. And he imagines, from this, that he has come to a complete and correct view of reality and how it came to be.

So, scientifically-minded people are narrow-minded, constrained people that lead pointless lives? How open-minded of you sir. Yes, science does limit itself - it cuts out the mumbo jumbo, comfort blankets and pointless whatifery. But to say that science or scientific thinkers are myopic is to kid yourself, but not me. My mind IS blown when I think of the complexity of a mitochondrion cell or the vastness of our universe. I feel awe at the beauty of rainbows, flowers and hummingbirds. I just don't NEED the unseen additions that you need.

Isn't the garden beautiful enough without having to imagine fairies living at the bottom of it?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

That's very generous of you to believe something when it's proven.

Do you believe the moon exists? And other proven things? Not a big gambling guy up for the odd hunch or two are you haha

Still... I'd put big money on you believing dark matter exists even though there's no evidence for it yet"

OK, cool. Don't remember making any claims of generosity though. Anyway, dark matter's a tricky one, as, like you say, there is no direct evidence for it. There is, though, a ton of quantifiable indirect evidence for it, which is more than can be said for some of the things discussed today ... if you respect evidence that is. And I'm not a betting man. But if I was to lay a bet, for the above reason, it would be on the existence of dark matter over the existence of sky wizards.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Isn't the garden beautiful enough without having to imagine fairies living at the bottom of it?"

You misunderstand my point. I'm merely asserting that you are not scientific minded. If you were you'd know that a large part of what you believe is not based on science. You are like the blind fool in my analogy who has extrapolated from the perfectly legitimate study of the confines of his cell that there is no world outside, other than an endless complex of similar cells.

In that analogy it would be scientific to claim knowledge of the cell but admit agnosticism concerning the world beyond. Science, after all, is about asserting what there is data for and leaving blank what there is not. This is not your stance. Instead you have chosen to fill in all the blanks with your own hokey pseudoscientific metaphysics. Others like Dawkins have done the same. So you're by no means alone. But it doesn't mean any of it all is in any way credible as a world view.

Whether the garden needs fairies at the bottom of it or not isn't an issue of belief. It either needs them or it doesn't. You claim it doesn't need them, that they are extraneous to the whole thing. But you have no evidence to support your claim. That's why your stance isn't a scientific minded stance. It's more hokey pokey sciencey stuffy wuff in the same way New Age healing is hokey pokey quantumy stuffy wuff.

Sorry if all that makes me sound grumpy and ranty. I've just been over this territory *a lot* with similar minded people so I tend to assume they're pretty much up for an argument and just go for the gullet. You seem a little more light hearted in your approach. So sorry if I've stormed in flailing my hammer in an inappropriate manner

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

" You are like the blind fool in my analogy who has extrapolated from the perfectly legitimate study of the confines of his cell that there is no world outside, other than an endless complex of similar cells.

In that analogy it would be scientific to claim knowledge of the cell but admit agnosticism concerning the world beyond.

So sorry if I've stormed in flailing my hammer in an inappropriate manner

First of all, I'd like you to point out where I said that there is no world/universe outside of what is known. I've merely said that that which has no evidence to support it doesn't require my attention. You clearly like a good debate, but try challenging the things that people say, as opposed to things you thought (or maybe, wished) they said.

Secondly, 'It either needs them or it doesn't'. What? That's convincing to you is it?

Jeez. Look, the universe is beautiful and awesome as it is. Is it not???? Furthermore, it works just fine, mathematically, philosophically etc. without unsubstantiated make-believe entities. And that, sir, is the evidence you said I didn't have.

And as for your flailing hammer, you can do your worst with it, but if your woeful inaccuracy continues you'll do more damage to yourself than anyone else. Maybe a fairy's wand might afford you some enhanced accuracy?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"First of all, I'd like you to point out where I said that there is no world/universe outside of what is known. I've merely said that that which has no evidence to support it doesn't require my attention. You clearly like a good debate, but try challenging the things that people say, as opposed to things you thought (or maybe, wished) they said.

Secondly, 'It either needs them or it doesn't'. What? That's convincing to you is it?

Good. I'm glad you're not too put out by my eager sparring

I completely agree that the universe is beautiful and awesome as it is. But you seem to be claiming that "as it is" does not involve fairies at the end of the garden. Supposing that the whole point of these fairies is that they created the garden we can state that if they exist they are essential to the existence of the garden and if they don't they're not. As such, you can't point to anything about the garden as evidence for their non existence if they are indeed necessary to the garden... your evidence wouldn't exist if there weren't fairies to make it exist. So you must instead show that the logic of the garden having been made by fairies is less credible than it having made itself or popped into existence from nothing. At the moment you can't even begin to frame an argument for either of those assertions. So, believe it or not, the fairy hypothesis is still the best

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There is much in life that we do not understand, perhaps even should not and will never. These are the great mysteries.

To suggest that just because something cannot be viewed and measured then it cannot exist is truly short sighted. While it is true that such such things cannot be proven in the laboratory in the same breath they cannot be disproved either.

There is enough empirical evidence to support the fact that the memory of water does indeed have the power to heal, that new wells can be found by dowsing, that Tarot can provide rare insights into the life of the individual. Furthermore, give the fact that we use only 10% of our brains we have to wonder what the other 90% is for. There is a tale of a Yogi who underwent major surgery without anaesthetic using only the power of his mind and meditation.

Such things most often come from a time long before modern science. Is it truly wise to debunk them and leave them behind? Modern science is nothing more than the new magic.

In this, i believe, scientific endeavour is the partially sighted leading the blind.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There is much in life that we do not understand, perhaps even should not and will never. These are the great mysteries.

Such things most often come from a time long before modern science. Is it truly wise to debunk them and leave them behind? Modern science is nothing more than the new magic.

In this, i believe, scientific endeavour is the partially sighted leading the blind."

That 10% thing is an utter myth. We use most of our brains most of the time. The water thing is also bollocks.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

"There is enough empirical evidence to support the fact that the memory of water does indeed have the power to heal, that new wells can be found by dowsing, that Tarot can provide rare insights into the life of the individual. "

Complete and utter bollocks.....

Next you will be saying the Earth is flat and we are being ruled by 12 foot shape shifting lizards

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Water has an infinite memory of a drop of lemon juice it once had in it but somehow forgets all the poo Its had in it.

You know what they call alternative medicine when it works .....Medicine!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *lbert_shlossedMan
over a year ago

Manchester

Old wives tales and mysticism is all great until you've got blood coming out of your eyeballs, most rational people then choose science because deep down they know it's mostly a load of old crap that people turn to when science can't answer there questions.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Old wives tales and mysticism is all great until you've got blood coming out of your eyeballs, most rational people then choose science because deep down they know it's mostly a load of old crap that people turn to when science can't answer there questions."

Exactly. No one prays to God to magically transport them to ibiza when they want to go on holiday. They rely on boring old scientifically tested planes.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So there's an admission that science can't answer everything, that's a start at least. And it's true that my brain claim is false (blame Einstein).

However, i have seen a multitude of interviews from people who subscribe to homeopathy vis a vis it's efficacy. These surely cannot be ignored.

Also, my eldest son has travelled to south east Asia with nothing more than homeopathic vaccines and returned perfectly healthy. I, myself, have performed acts of ritual magic and reaped the benefits.

You can put this down to luck and coincidence if you like. It's been previously stated that a belief in a 'higher power' or 'cosmic forces' offers a convenient and simplistic answer but i fail to see how this differs from a belief in luck or coincidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If water memory was true, tap water would be the most dangerous substance on the planet and you could get d*unk on a used wine bottle filled with water.

As for you performing ritual magic I only have 2 words: confirmation bias.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This quote from the god delusion is relevant.

Everytime you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that you imbibe at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell. It's just elementary probability theory. The number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater than the number of number of glassfuls in the world. So everytime we have a full glass, we are looking at a rather high proportion of the molecules of water that exist in the world.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If water memory was true, tap water would be the most dangerous substance on the planet and you could get d*unk on a used wine bottle filled with water.

As for you performing ritual magic I only have 2 words: confirmation bias."

Not so, such things existed before i believed them to be true. I have suffered ridicule for my beliefs for most of my life, all your words are nothing new and have little impact.

It's not my place to open your minds, i have better things to do. It seems that only when you witness these things for yourselves will you change your mindsets. Such is life.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

Coincidence is just a set of concurrence of events or circumstances that initially have no apparent casualty connection with each other.

It’s our human perception and self projection that lead to people claiming supernatural, paranormal, occult intervention. Or even a belief in fate....

Statistically, coincidences are inevitable and more than not far less remarkable than we believe them to be...

I would suggest that you google the “Birthday Problem” this shows the probability of two people having the same birthday is greater than 50% in a group of only 23 people.

Rational thought and real critical thinking is what we should be aiming for rather than being lazy and proclaiming unproven “cosimic forces”....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

I just come back to the op's weird coincidence with his favourite band. I had similar on a ferry once. I think Occam's razor only helps coincidence thinking within certain limits. If you walk into a car park. Find someone has sprayed an "X" on the floor, ask people to dig there, and find Richard III's remains by doing so... at that point the kind of ludicrous thinking that has to take place in order to explain it as a coincidence stretches Occam to breaking point. It is a much simpler explanation, with far fewer assumptions, to merely assume some ability to sense Richard's remains. So at a certain point Occam discredits coincidence theory and infers something more bizarre. For me, this is also the case with the proverbial fairies at the end of the garden

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

RIII's remains were located after years of research making use of contemporary and subsequent accounts of his burial, historical maps and plans of the city and the friary, and knowledge of contemporary practises. The only coincidence is the "R" (not X) which was sprayed on the tarmac several feet away from where his remains were found. It was very faded and had obviously been there for some time.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I prefer to keep an open mind. While it is true that the existence of a 'higher power' or 'cosmic forces' cannot be proven equally they cannot be disproven. I have only my own experience to draw my conclusions from.

What i find interesting is, as someone who is almost entirely auto-didactic, is the amount of criticism levelled at me by people who haven't tried it for themselves and glean their information from people who also haven't tried it for themselves and believe ultimately that if it shouldn't work, or be so, then it can't, or be true.

To quote William Blake: "The fool sees not the same tree that the wise man sees".

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"I prefer to keep an open mind. While it is true that the existence of a 'higher power' or 'cosmic forces' cannot be proven equally they cannot be disproven. I have only my own experience to draw my conclusions from.

To quote William Blake: "The fool sees not the same tree that the wise man sees"."

You also can't disprove that I have an invisible pink elephant living in my garden. Do you have an open mind about that?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The natural always trumps the supernatural.Saying something is supernatural isn't an answer it's saying "I don't know so I will attribute my own beliefs onto what I observe ."

Once science explains an event or something observed those who attribute supernatural agency to it slip away never to seen again .Strange that .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To quote William Blake: "The fool sees not the same tree that the wise man sees".

You also can't disprove that I have an invisible pink elephant living in my garden. Do you have an open mind about that? "

Some peoples minds are so open their brains have fallen out.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

Personal experiences are not necessarily the most reliable guide...

After all I’m sure you have seen an optical illusion at some point....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To quote William Blake: "The fool sees not the same tree that the wise man sees".

You also can't disprove that I have an invisible pink elephant living in my garden. Do you have an open mind about that?

Some peoples minds are so open their brains have fallen out.

I'd rather have a mind like that than one that's entirely closed off.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

To quote William Blake: "The fool sees not the same tree that the wise man sees".

You also can't disprove that I have an invisible pink elephant living in my garden. Do you have an open mind about that?

Some peoples minds are so open their brains have fallen out.

I'd rather have a mind like that than one that's entirely closed off."

I prefer a mind that looks at the evidence for any given proposition and makes decisions on the basis of that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

The Richard III thing is bollocks anyway. He was found buried under a car park and near where there was a R for "reserved". The car park was built on the site of an old friary where contemporary documents say he was buried.

So what's more likely? The reserved space being near where his body was is completely unconnected or some mysterious force told the car park planners to put the space there. (although why not directly over the grave is a bit strange).

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

Nobody knows why there was an "R" sprayed on the carpark. "Reserved" was just their best guess, although it seems an unlikely way of marking a reserved space and it also didn't seem to be marking a particular space.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it."

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Buy and read the power of the subconscious mind and as a man thinketh. Read and implement into your life for a few month without skepticism and then come back and report. You can’t google this shit you have to believe, implement and observe. The answers will surprise and delight you in ways you never though possible.

If you don’t have the patience to do so then you’ll always be a non believer.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

Occam did

Occam was a theist. And Occam's razor is an argument for theism because you only need to postulate the existence of a god and then a myriad of other philosophical problems and intellectual somersaults disappear.

If someone walks into the room and turns on the TV just in time for you to see them being interviewed on it the notion that this chain of events was purely coincidental is far sillier than proposing that the person knew that they were going to be on TV and deliberately acted in that way to show it to you.

That's how Occam's razor works. At times it favours coincidence. At others it favours conscious intelligent activity. That's why Occam's razor still favours an intelligence underlying our existence, just as it did when Occam formulated it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 29/08/18 13:13:59]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There is much in life that we do not understand, perhaps even should not and will never. These are the great mysteries.

Such things most often come from a time long before modern science. Is it truly wise to debunk them and leave them behind? Modern science is nothing more than the new magic.

In this, i believe, scientific endeavour is the partially sighted leading the blind."

I would argue thast there is zero empirical and reliable evidence for water memory or water divining. If you have some, do post links because despite being a total skeptic I do find this stuff all very fascinating.

You're kind of hedging your bets and arguing against yourself though. In one paragraph you say just because we can't measure something that's no reason to say it doesn't exist, and then in the next paragraph you say that there is in fact measurement, in the form of empirical evidence.

The idea that we only use 10% of our brains is nothing more than a myth, (e.g. http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121112-do-we-only-use-10-of-our-brains), and even if it is true that some individuals show remarkable levels of pain control and body control that doesn't mean there is any "cosmic power" at work more than the astonishing power of the human mind.

Tarot cards can show insights into people's lives and minds sure, but only through the "mundane" processes of psychology, suggestion, and imagery. There is zero proof that Tarot readers have any ability to read the future or discover secret knowledge of their subjects' minds.

It's a fair point that modern science doesn't have all the answers and we still have much to learn, but remember that a lot of this "ancient knowledge" was based on a) a need to explain the unexplained and b) a means of social control.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave "

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

You lot make it sound like the car park was the main location people thought he was buried in, it wasn't, it was a fringe theory, and that archaeology works by people pointing at a blank bit of ground and saying "dig there" and a vital artefact is found, it doesn't. But your need for reality to be unthreateningly mundane, your need for the comfort blanket of mundane "explanations", even in extraordinary cases like this, are so extreme that you can't let it sit with you as it actually happened i.e something fucking odd that infers a more fatalistic or sensitive view of reality. And then you accuse us lot of being swayed by confirmation bias and comforting wishful thinking

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

Occam did

I disagree, because "God did it" ultimately explains nothing. We know a lot now about natural processes and how physics works. There is little need to add anything to our world view to explain pretty much all that we see. We have a set of laws of physics which so far are managing to explain the universe pretty well.

So the choice is, either our universe runs along lines that we can already explain with our knowledge of physics, or we can postulate some invisible deity who will then require a whole new set of laws and processes to explain exactly how the deity does what it does. I.e. we would need to multiply entities beyond necessity in order to explain things that we can already explain.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

Contemporary documents said he was buried in the grey friars priory. . The archaeologists traced the likely location of the priory through an examination of maps and documents over various years. They highlighted the car park and a playground as likely excavation areas.

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

Of course i am all too aware that i may be wrong, this is one advantage that i have over the scientific mind. In many respects they act like religious fundamentalists; "this is the word, end story", a viewpoint that smacks of intolerance.

Until there is irrefutable proof that i am wrong then my beliefs will remain as they are. All i ask is that they are respected.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I disagree, because "God did it" ultimately explains nothing. We know a lot now about natural processes and how physics works. There is little need to add anything to our world view to explain pretty much all that we see. We have a set of laws of physics which so far are managing to explain the universe pretty well.

Scientists in the 17th century postulated that, if there was a god, the universe should be ruled over by a set of laws. So they set out looking for those laws. This marked western science out from the atheist science of the east, where Chinese atheists assumed that, since there was no god, the universe shouldn't operate according to any laws.

Western science has since gone on to discover laws underpinning the universe and, through so doing, proved the existence of god to their 17th century peers. Unfortunately for theists, however, some clever theists argued that the mere existence of laws does not prove the existence of a law maker. In one sense they were right. But we are still awaiting a viable alternative theory to laws being made by a law maker. So in another sense this assumption has not yet been shown to be wrong.

Your assertion that "There is little need to add anything to our world view to explain pretty much all that we see" reveals the problem. Modern science applies naturalistic reasoning to everything after the universe came into being. It is currently incapable of explaining via natural processes how it came into being. If, in order to finally explain everything, we need fairies to be at the end of the garden then the stark reality is that the attempt to describe the universe via naturalistic processes has failed, we've got some extra fairies kicking around, so we don't need to rely so rigidly on coincidence theory any more

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

Until there is irrefutable proof that i am wrong then my beliefs will remain as they are. All i ask is that they are respected."

Until I have irrefutable proof that you aren't a murderer I am going to believe you are and I expect you to respect that belief.

See the problem with that?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

Nobody knows why there was an "R" sprayed on the tarmac, therefore it must be something supernatural?

Richard's remains being buried at Greyfriars was never a "fringe theory". The story of him being thrown into the River Soar only appeared in the early 17th Century and there is no known mention of it before that. It's thought now that the historian John Speed confused Richard's story with that of John Wycliffe who was thrown into another local river, as well as making mistakes about the historical location of Greyfriars. The other local folklore concerns a concrete coffin, but that was also debunked by historians many years ago.

The location of the archaeological remains of Greyfriars was put forward in the 1970s and was investigated by various historians both professional and amateur in following decades, culminating in the collaboration of The RIII Society and Leicester University. This investigation went on for six or seven years using contemporary records and maps to pin down the precise location of the friary. Knowledge of contemporary practices allowed an accurate guess at what part of the friary Richard would have been buried in.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that. "

I'm only going on the tv show that was produced to document its discovery. The archaeologists agreed that it was really freaky and weird. That the car park was a fringe theory held by amateur archaeologists. And that a woman had basically intuited that Richard III's remains were located under the graffiti on the tarmac because she had a funny feeling it marked the spot. They dug down and found it. And they were all wandering around scratching their heads complaining that the odds of this were astronomical and that this really isn't how archaeology works.

If they've since changed that story and confessed that those events were staged to try and create public interest I'd be interested in reading about that odd little conspiracy. Very quirky and eccentric. Worthy of piltdown man status.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park" "

I have read the section of the Leicester uni website and the Wikipedia article. I think I'll avoid a sensationalist TV show.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park"

I have read the section of the Leicester uni website and the Wikipedia article. I think I'll avoid a sensationalist TV show. "

Fair enough. But what's written post haste in both of those sites doesn't mirror what actually happened when the cameras were rolling. But why not add blinkeredness to confirmation bias... they seem to make good bed pals

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park"

I have read the section of the Leicester uni website and the Wikipedia article. I think I'll avoid a sensationalist TV show.

You mean like the confirmation bias of always preferring some tenuous mystical explanation to a rational one?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park" "

I think you should watch it again too, as you seem to be falling prey to selective memory here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0JL_Utee0

Yes, Phillippa Langley and the RIII Society are well known to be somewhat kooky, and she does talk in the program about how she felt all these "intuitions" about the discovery. Producers know what makes good telly, but if you watch with an open mind then you will be reminded that the program does also give some time to serious historians from Leicester Uni who based the dig on far more tangible and reliable research. Do you seriously think that a fully-funded archeological dig would have gone ahead in the centre of Leicester, on nothing except the intuition and say so of a well-known RIII apologist and fangirl?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park"

I think you should watch it again too, as you seem to be falling prey to selective memory here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0JL_Utee0

Very good!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

Until there is irrefutable proof that i am wrong then my beliefs will remain as they are. All i ask is that they are respected.

Until I have irrefutable proof that you aren't a murderer I am going to believe you are and I expect you to respect that belief.

See the problem with that? "

I see no problem with that. The problem only begins when you try to convince others to your belief and deride those who choose to believe otherwise.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

Until there is irrefutable proof that i am wrong then my beliefs will remain as they are. All i ask is that they are respected.

Until I have irrefutable proof that you aren't a murderer I am going to believe you are and I expect you to respect that belief.

See the problem with that?

I see no problem with that. The problem only begins when you try to convince others to your belief and deride those who choose to believe otherwise."

What if I went around telling everyone you are a murderer?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ait88Man
over a year ago

Plymouth

Science is about guessing what happens – theories – and either proving or disproving that they’re right. If a theory is proven to be right, it is a fact, and often the basis of further theories. That’s how our modern technological society evolved. It has nothing to do with anyone’s god or cosmic forces.

Many scientists are currently engaged in trying to find out exactly why some aspects of both the “Big Bang” and “Standard Model” theories are demonstrably wrong, though rigorously logical. The answers may well be life-changing for us all. And explain not a few of the weird things that we experience. It may involve some or all of the dimensions that we are only aware of via mathematical proofs.

It seems strange to me that when people don’t know the answer to a question, they invent one that is completely illogical. What the hell’s wrong with just saying “I don’t know”?

Try to find a copy of a book called “The Psychology of the Psychic” by David Marks and Richard Kammann

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

"An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

Until there is irrefutable proof that i am wrong then my beliefs will remain as they are. All i ask is that they are respected."

Unfortunately what you claim as acting like religious fundamentalists is because the scientific enquiry is the correct interpretation of events... As this will have been done by the scientific gathering of evidence followed by independent review and scrutiny of all the hypothesis and evidence before any conclusion.

Your so called advantage ceases to exist whilst you cling beliefs that do not hold up to real scrutiny.

Yes you can always find so called scientists and researchers that claim bizarre stuff but these tend to be on the fringe of real science and have normally been discredited due to poor research methodology and conveniently ignoring counter evidence.

I challenge you to produce mainstream links that validate your beliefs....

Failing that the fairies at the bottom of my garden could do with the company....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"An open mind requires you to question your perception and beliefs rather than fall back on pseudoscience and irrational explanations which cannot validated with proper scientific research....

And be open to the fact you might be wrong.....

Until there is irrefutable proof that i am wrong then my beliefs will remain as they are. All i ask is that they are respected.

Until I have irrefutable proof that you aren't a murderer I am going to believe you are and I expect you to respect that belief.

See the problem with that?

I see no problem with that. The problem only begins when you try to convince others to your belief and deride those who choose to believe otherwise.

What if I went around telling everyone you are a murderer? "

Exactly the point i was making, it's the attempt to force your beliefs onto others that causes the problem.

For the record i don't preach or proselytise my beliefs and i certainly don't deride those who choose to believe differently. Clearly the same cannot be applied to the majority of posters on this thread.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Science is about guessing what happens – theories – and either proving or disproving that they’re right. If a theory is proven to be right, it is a fact, and often the basis of further theories. That’s how our modern technological society evolved. It has nothing to do with anyone’s god or cosmic forces.

It seems strange to me that when people don’t know the answer to a question, they invent one that is completely illogical. What the hell’s wrong with just saying “I don’t know”?

Try to find a copy of a book called “The Psychology of the Psychic” by David Marks and Richard Kammann

This is the bottom line. Scienctific research is based a fundamental set of principles and processes and methodology which were clearly codified by Karl Popper.

Scientific theories can be proved wrong, this is the whole basis of Popper's theory of falsification. A theory is postulated based upon the currently available data and knowledge. If it is proved wrong then the theory must be changed. If it is incapable of being proved wrong, then it isn't science.

The supernatural view of the universe can never be proved wrong, that is the very nature of religion and other occult worldviews. They sit comfortably outside of the rules of science which enables people to continue believing in the face of zero reliable evidence.

I don't mock or belittle anybody who believes in the supernatural. At heart I'm a true agnostic and I've had a lifelong fascination with occult studies even from a skeptical pov for most of my adult life. Religion and the supernatural give many people a lot of comfort and always have done, and they also add some much-needed magic and mystery to the world for people.

Just personally, I don't see any real need to believe in anything supernatural when there are much more convincing, and equally magical and amazing, explanations in science.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This thread has gone way off course... and I'm partly to blame haha

That's not how Occam's Razor works. At all.

Postulating an entirely unknown, superpower style 'ability' to sense dead people is not more simple than coincidence. You can't just assume incredible things and then claim they're the easy answers.

It is an odd coincidence, even a little spooky, but personally I'm a total (if agnostic) skeptic and I'm sure there is some thoroughly mundane explanantion for it.

I read it was for reserved, but you seem to have greater knowledge about this

But random graffiti is still a better explanation than a mystic power marking the grave

I'm just loving the confirmation bias at work here haha

So far so mundane. Is your serious suggestion that the archaeologists knew where to dig because of divine inspiration? If so, no doubt you can point me to an archaeologist saying that.

Go back and watch "the King in the car park"

I think you should watch it again too, as you seem to be falling prey to selective memory here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH0JL_Utee0

Very good! "

Niki just gave an overview of the dig. Yes Phillippa Langley and the RIII Society were well known to be somewhat kooky. Yes she intuited where she felt they'd find remains based on graffiti on the tarmac. Yes historians from Leicester Uni humoured these nutters and dug where they wanted to dig. Yes that was not due to their having deduced logically that was the most likely site of his remains. Yes they were all scratching their heads and remarking on how that's not how archaeology usually works. No selective memory here at all. It's the version of events that has the dig being led based on serious evidence and located due to that evidence which is selective. Watch the documentary again.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can you see how, with the Richard III dig, I'm merely accepting all the events which took place. Whereas some of you are surpressing certain events in order to try and shoehorn it into your confirmation bias. This is what confirmation bias looks like.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Can you see how, with the Richard III dig, I'm merely accepting all the events which took place. Whereas some of you are surpressing certain events in order to try and shoehorn it into your confirmation bias. This is what confirmation bias looks like. "

We're accepting all the evidence too. We accept this woman said she had some intuitions but we dont believe that anything like that could possibly influence serious archaeologists to undertake a very expensive and disruptive dig.

Think about it .

"hi Leicester council, can we dig up your car park as we think Richard III is buried there"

"that's interesting, what makes you think that? "

" well there's some kooky woman who says she has an intuition and there's a letter R sprayed on the tarmac there"

"that's good enough for us, get digging! "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"... that was not due to their having deduced logically that was the most likely site of his remains."

Yes, it WAS due to hard work and historical deduction. Even Langley herself put in some serious research before she ever went to that car park (it was at the time, of course, a cart park) and saw her "mystical sign".

Quite frankly I think you are totally disrespecting the amount of academic work and research that went on for several years before the actual dig, just to make some point about a weird coincidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Here's something to ponder upon.

My father-in-law, who's in his, eighties has had breast cancer for the last 15 years despite receiving no treatment for it apart from having his dressings changed every day. He's lived far beyond the expectations of the men of science even if he'd had the full ferocity of their available treatments. Admittedly he's in a bit of a mess as it's spread throughout his body and erupted from his chest.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

This does not change the fact that he's proved the men of science wrong nor that they are unable to explain it. If it was up to them the last few years of his life would have been ruined with invasive surgery and chemotherapy. He's saved himself from that at least.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

Well done to your dad in law, but in the nicest possible way, all that shows is that doctors are not infallible and don't know everything. I am not sure what else you think it might show.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

Well done to your dad in law, but in the nicest possible way, all that shows is that doctors are not infallible and don't know everything. I am not sure what else you think it might show. "

Mind over matter perhaps? Or that the ways of the much vaunted men of science are not the only way.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

I don't see why there needs to be any supernatural explanation though. Medical science doesn't know everything and new discoveries are being made all the time. Perhaps one day we will know why some people beat cancer while others die quickly from it. Just because we don't know right now, doesn't mean that there isn't some medical explanation.

I had a heart attack before my 50th birthday. They don't know exactly why. I've not lived a healthy life, but other people have lived even more unhealthy lives than me yet make it well into old age with no heart problems while other people live a life of exemplary healthiness but suffer fatal heart problems before even their 30th birthday. Just because medical science is still learning why this is so, doesn't require any supernatural explanation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm reminded of Arthur C Clark (I think) writing that any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. Much Western technology was believed to be magic by some of the less technologically advanced cultures that we came into contact with historically.

Point I'm making is, medical science is well aware of the power of the mind when it comes to health, strength, and general physical well-being. Whilst this might seem somewhat magical and supernatural to us right now, there's no reason imho not to believe that there are sound physical processes at work.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

"I'm reminded of Arthur C Clark (I think) writing that any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. "

Correct.....

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

My suggestion was that his being an accomplished occultist has enabled him to survive without the intrusion of modern science. As far as i am aware the harnessing of the mind forms a significant part of their training. I don't see this ad being any more ludicrous than suggesting it's by chance, luck or coincidence.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Niki just gave an overview of the dig. Yes Phillippa Langley and the RIII Society were well known to be somewhat kooky. Yes she intuited where she felt they'd find remains based on graffiti on the tarmac. Yes historians from Leicester Uni humoured these nutters and dug where they wanted to dig. Yes that was not due to their having deduced logically that was the most likely site of his remains. Yes they were all scratching their heads and remarking on how that's not how archaeology usually works. No selective memory here at all. It's the version of events that has the dig being led based on serious evidence and located due to that evidence which is selective. Watch the documentary again. "

Okeys, I have just finished watching the whole thing again, just in case I was myself a victim of selective memory.

There is nothing about the location of the dig being based on Philippa's intuition, nothing about the carpark theory ever being "fringe".

Yes, there are people from Leicester Uni saying it was "a long shot". Yes, there is the dig supervisor saying that it's not how archaeology is normally done. Well we all know that anyway. The whole dig was primarily motivated and largely funded privately by Langley and the RIII Society. Without their passion and resources, it's no doubt true that the dig would never have happened.

Let me quote a representative of Leicester Uni Archaeological Dept., from this program which you remember as showing a dig that happened because of intuition and no ground work or academic research. "Initially I thought, oh dear, it's somebody who thinks it's going to be really easy ... but then it became clear that actually there was some very good solid research behind her idea of looking in the Greyfriars ..."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

I wasn't in anyway suggesting it was a case of "chance, luck, or coincidence". I was suggesting that if he has any particular characteristics that helped him to beat the cancer, then they are natural processes which one day we will no doubt understand better, rather than anything "occult" per se.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"... that was not due to their having deduced logically that was the most likely site of his remains.

Quite frankly I think you are totally disrespecting the amount of academic work and research that went on for several years before the actual dig, just to make some point about a weird coincidence."

And I think you're misrepresentating the event in order to shoehorn it into your thinking. The car park was not the leading probable site of his remains at the time. The dig in the car park was not incited due to the foremost experts in the field deducing his remains were most likely there. And the precise location to dig was not chosen by any rational logic whatsoever. The argument that the car park was the site of his remains was pushed by the RIII Society and it was considered viable but not exceptionally so by other historians. I'm not sure why Leicester Uni decided to humour them. But they did. Perhaps they thought they'd at least learn something in doing so... or at least get the RIII society off their back.

If a story has since emerged that leading historians had deduced the car park was the most likely site of his remains then that's either been done to try and cover up all the embarrassing weirdness around the event or it's true and the whole event was a staged hoax. There's so much confirmation bias on display in this thread that I'm happy to believe it was the former. Some people, as you guys have shown, can't bring themselves to accept something weird has just happened... even when it's undeniable and under their noses. That's the power of confirmation bias.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the contribution of an individual's characteristic may play a significant role. It is also possible that occultism plays a significant role towards said characteristic.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm not sure why Leicester Uni decided to humour them. But they did. "

Please see my quote above, from the program which you seem to think supports whatever it is you believe went on.

"The car park was not the leading probable site of his remains at the time. "

Yes it was, because of, wait for it : ) Years of prior research!

You keep banging on about confirmation bias whilst apparently blissfully unaware of how much you are a prey to it : )

"Staged hoax" is now starting to sound like conspiracy theory nonsense. I doubt I will convince you any time soon of how mistaken you are on this particular topic.

The only "weird" thing that happened there, was that there was an old and faded "R" spray painted in the vicinity of the initial trench which stretched the entire length of the car park. If you want to make something supernatural of that, go ahead : )

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Okeys, I have just finished watching the whole thing again, just in case I was myself a victim of selective memory.

There is nothing about the location of the dig being based on Philippa's intuition, nothing about the carpark theory ever being "fringe".

Thank you. So I was right

You're just wording your response to try and make it sound like I wasn't. The dig was funded and motivated by the RIII society. The leading scholars thought it was a long shot. They were scratching their heads when it worked out. They humoured them because there was evidence supporting their claim, not because leading historians were pointing at that location. I agree there was ground work. But it was a fringe theory pushed by the RIII society not leading historians. And your post shows that. It's odd that the documentary contains nothing about the woman intuiting the spot due to the grafitti as that was widely talked about at the time and when I first bought it up on this thread you lot all knew the story too, and indeed corrected me about it being an R.

It's amazing that you watched it and yet still managed to come out with a stilted view of it

Confirmation bias is super strong. No wonder some people are still flat earthers

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"... that was not due to their having deduced logically that was the most likely site of his remains.

Quite frankly I think you are totally disrespecting the amount of academic work and research that went on for several years before the actual dig, just to make some point about a weird coincidence.

I have this intuition that Lord Lucian is buried under Leicester Library based on the fact the initials are the same. Do you reckon Leicester University will do a dig for me and Leicester Council will allow me to dig up their library?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is also very likely that occultism has nothing to do with it.

As as far as I’m aware there is no reliable evidence accredit outcomes with supernatural beliefs

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is also very likely that occultism has nothing to do with it.

As as far as I’m aware there is no reliable evidence accredit outcomes with supernatural beliefs "

Yes i know, you've mentioned that before.

As far as i am aware there is no reliable evidence to discredit it either. It appears we are at a stalemate. You believe what you wish to believe and i'll believe what i wish to believe and life goes on as before.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is also very likely that occultism has nothing to do with it.

As as far as I’m aware there is no reliable evidence accredit outcomes with supernatural beliefs

Yes i know, you've mentioned that before.

There's plenty of reliable evidence to discredit it. No supernatural causation has ever been proven under laboratory conditions.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is also very likely that occultism has nothing to do with it.

As as far as I’m aware there is no reliable evidence accredit outcomes with supernatural beliefs

Yes i know, you've mentioned that before.

There's plenty of reliable evidence to discredit it. No supernatural causation has ever been proven under laboratory conditions. "

You said it, 'laboratory conditions'.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is also very likely that occultism has nothing to do with it.

As as far as I’m aware there is no reliable evidence accredit outcomes with supernatural beliefs

Yes i know, you've mentioned that before.

There's plenty of reliable evidence to discredit it. No supernatural causation has ever been proven under laboratory conditions.

You said it, 'laboratory conditions'."

Yes, conditions where claims are rigorously tested on the basis of evidence. That's how we got things like the Internet we are both using.

It's funny that occult powers have never been proven in a similar way.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Thank you. So I was right

It's amazing that you watched it and yet still managed to come out with a stilted view of it

Confirmation bias is super strong. No wonder some people are still flat earthers "

You're welcome. But no, you are still wrong.

The Greyfriars location was never a "fringe theory". If you can come up with some credible links to support that view and convince me of it, against the many years that I've been reading about and taking an interest in this subject, then by all means go ahead.

You say "no leading historians were pointing at that location". I guess you are unaware then that a key part of the research that Langley worked on came from a 1986 paper by David Baldwin, a specialist in medieval history and lecturer at Leicester and Nottingham universities, and writer of various books concerning RIII and the Wars of the Roses.

The dig was PRIMARILY motivated and funded by the RIII society. They are an international society with many passionate members from the more affluent layers of society. There's nothing supernatural about the fact that they, and Langley in particular, were initially the prime movers in this before they presented enough convincing evidence to Leicester University to get the project off the ground.

You say "humoured", I say persuaded by the research and evidence (and potential resources) presented to them by Langley. Again, where is the supernatural element in this?

"It's odd that the documentary contains nothing about the woman intuiting the spot due to the grafitti". Have you even watched it? The "R", and Langley's feelings about it, are mentioned within the first few minutes.

"I agree there was ground work." Good, I'm glad we agree. So where is the supernatural element in all this?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ait88Man
over a year ago

Plymouth

"Religion and the supernatural give many people a lot of comfort and always have done ..."

They are killing a lot of people, and always have done.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Here's something to ponder upon.

He still drives and does the weekly shopping. He's also an accomplished occultist.

You can put this down to coincidence if you like or any other of a number of tenuous explanations, even the fact that he's a stubborn old git.

It's good to know he's doing well, and that his physiology and health are enabling him to fight the cancer. I also share some of your skepiticism about medical approaches and paradigms.

Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

It is also very likely that occultism has nothing to do with it.

As as far as I’m aware there is no reliable evidence accredit outcomes with supernatural beliefs

Yes i know, you've mentioned that before.

There's plenty of reliable evidence to discredit it. No supernatural causation has ever been proven under laboratory conditions.

You said it, 'laboratory conditions'.

Yes, conditions where claims are rigorously tested on the basis of evidence. That's how we got things like the Internet we are both using.

It's funny that occult powers have never been proven in a similar way. "

Not so rigorous it seems. Let's take the 'scientific' test that was used to disprove dowsing.

Plastic bottles were hidden underneath a floor. Some had water in them and the dowsers had to find which ones. Obviously they failed to do so and this test was used to disprove the practice.

Clearly the scientists failed to take into account that this is not actually how water is found in the real world, for all their supposed intelligence i would have thought they would have realised that yet they remain firm in their conclusions.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sorry, the 'chance, luck or coincidence' was in answer to many of the previous posts, i'm not singling you out.

If we take "occultism" as meaning supernatural powers of some kind, I'd have to disagree sorry. Far more believable to my mind is that some people have particular talents or characteristics which they and others describe as "occult", while they are in fact natural processes which we will hopefully understand more fully one day.

I don't say there's any deliberate intention to mislead. There are plenty of practitioners of tarot, astrology, clairvoyance for instance who are very sincere about it. I'd argue though that they have abilities such as cold reading, enhanced intuition (i.e. the ability to read people clearly from body language, tone of voice, and other non verbal cues) and so on, which because of their world view they sincerely believe to be "occult".

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not so rigorous it seems. Let's take the 'scientific' test that was used to disprove dowsing.

Plastic bottles were hidden underneath a floor. Some had water in them and the dowsers had to find which ones. Obviously they failed to do so and this test was used to disprove the practice.

How would you explain other studies done in "real world" conditions, where dowsers score no better than chance?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No supernatural causation has ever been proven under laboratory conditions. "

You left the bit out about no supernatural causation ever being even possible to prove. That's why it's never been proven. Whatever happens in nature will always be, by dint of it occurring in nature, natural. Even if Jesus suddenly magically appeared and walked on water and said "wow it's good to be back" you'd agree that all of this would have to have occurred in nature and therefore simply expand your view of nature to incorporate the possibility of such things. That's why naturalism is even more slippery and meaningless than theism. At least theism is a fixed theory that describes something specific. You might disagree with it. But at least you can get some kind of fix on what it's claiming. You can't say the same for naturalism.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ild_oatsMan
over a year ago

the land of saints & sinners

We take a perverse pleasure in things that fool our senses, which is why conjuring tricks are delightful and present the urge to believe in the supernatural and thus science can seem a killjoy.

Yet despite many anecdotal reports of success, dowsing has never been shown to work in many controlled scientific tests. That’s not to say the dowsing rods don’t move. They do.

The scientific explanation for what happens when people dowse is that “ideomotor movements” – muscle movements caused by subconscious mental activity – make anything held in the hands move. It looks and feels as if the movements are involuntary. The same phenomenon has been shown to lie behind movements of objects on a Ouija board. Hence why these things are wrongly attributed to supernatural or the occult.

The physicist Richard Feynman once said that science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Niki. I appreciate that you have strong views on the Richard III dig. But all my points stand vindicated. The site of the dig was not the most likely location determined by experts in the field at the time. It was promoted by the Richard III society. They consisted of lots of good researchers no doubt. But their view was not the accepted view of the experts. The experts decided to humour them because it seemed plausible. All of this is perhaps unusual but not weird.

That a woman walked into the car park, got a hunch he was under a bit of graffiti, and they dug there and found him is bizarre to say the least. You prefer to see that in reverse i.e that it was likely he was there but it was odd that a bit of graffiti coincidentally lay over the spot. That's not true. It was a "long shot" that he was in the car park. It was utterly unlikely to the nth degree that someone saying dig just here at this point where this graffiti is would be right.

The only reason we're discussing this is because this is a well known example of an unbelievable coincidence in which many people, like yourself, have tried to either forget it happened that way or portray it differently after the fact in order to help them sleep at night. It does not prove supernatural cause. But if you just stop trying to shoehorn it into your worldview you should be slightly disturbed that it may indicate there's something else happening at times beyond mere coincidence. Just let reality be what it is. And base your thinking on that. That's all

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Niki. I appreciate that you have strong views on the Richard III dig. But all my points stand vindicated. The site of the dig was not the most likely location determined by experts in the field at the time. It was promoted by the Richard III society. They consisted of lots of good researchers no doubt. But their view was not the accepted view of the experts. The experts decided to humour them because it seemed plausible. All of this is perhaps unusual but not weird.

I have no axe to grind over the RIII dig itself, although I am local to the site as well as a keen lifelong amateur historian. What I do have strong feelings about however, is when people wilfully ignore all the public facts, historical timelines, academic literature etc, not to mention examples from documentaries which they themselves brought into the discussion, with the aim of trying to make something supernatural out of something that was in fact the product of a lot of hard work by a lot of dedicated people. Sure it was a long shot which paid off. Do you ascribe supernatural forces to all long shots that work out?

I'm starting to repeat myself now and clearly you will never be persuaded of the known facts, so I'll just make these few comments ...

"But all my points stand vindicated.""

No they don't, and your thinking that they do shows that I've been wasting my time presenting you with solid arguments to support that.

"But their view was not the accepted view of the experts."

You talk as if there were some accepted academic consensus on where the remains of RIII were to be found. This is not at all the case and displays a lack of background knowledge on your part, on both the history of RIII and on the more recent history of the discovery of his remains. The local folklore in Leicester had it that his remains were disinterred during the dissolution of the monasteries, and chucked in the local river. This folklore was based on some erroneous writings by one John Speed who got various facts wrong. This is even mentioned in the documentary that you seem to be getting all of your information from, and is also discussed at length in various books on the topic, academic papers, internet articles etc, should you care to read up properly on this for yourself.

"The experts decided to humour them because it seemed plausible."

To repeat myself, Langley was not "humoured". She presented credible evidence to Leicester University, which was in turn based on prior research done by others going back several decades, along with the patent fact that the RIII Society would be a source of at least a large portion of the funds necessary to undertake the dig. If you think that archeological digs are undertaken under the premise of anything being merely "plausible" then you really have very little grasp of the field.

"a woman walked into the car park, got a hunch he was under a bit of graffiti, and they dug there and found him is bizarre to say the least."

This is not what happened! You are utterly mis-stating the facts in the face of public knowledge. You think Langley just jumped on a train from Edinburgh, wandered into some random Leicester carpark, spotted an "R" in faded spraypaint and thought "Fuck this is the spot!"? What's bizarre is that you seem so attached to this version of events, even though the true story is public knowledge for anyone interested enough to find out. Hell, even Langley herself doesn't claim such patent nonsense.

"It was a "long shot" that he was in the car park. It was utterly unlikely to the nth degree that someone saying dig just here at this point where this graffiti is would be right."

Not especially. There are numerous contemporary and subsequent accounts which describe RIII being buried at Greyfriars. Greyfriars itself was located after years of patient research and investigation. Once Greyfriars was found, and if the story of RIII being chucked in the River Soar was untrue, then where else would he be? You didn't see the site, but you can see in the documentary and photographs that a lot of the carpark was dug up. What did not happen is Langley saying "Hey dig here!" and RIII immediately being discovered under the first bit of tarmac that was removed. He wasn't even under the "R" but some distance from it.

"The only reason we're discussing this is because this is a well known example of an unbelievable coincidence in which many people, like yourself, have tried to either forget it happened that way or portray it differently after the fact in order to help them sleep at night. It does not prove supernatural cause. But if you just stop trying to shoehorn it into your worldview you should be slightly disturbed that it may indicate there's something else happening at times beyond mere coincidence. Just let reality be what it is. And base your thinking on that. That's all "

I disagree. We're discussing this because you are dismissing the amount of dedication and hard work that went into getting this project off the ground, the contemporary accounts of the location of the burial, the fact that prior to Langley and the RIII Society getting involved few people took much interest in looking for him, and the fact that at the end of the day, the only coincidence here is that a person called Richard was eventually found beneath a carpark that happened to have an "R" spraypainted onto the tarmac at some point, and not even over his actual burial place.

You say I'm shoehorning, but from where I'm standing it looks totally as if you are cherry picking bits of information and blithely ignoring other bits of information, to make a small coincidence seem somehow meaningful. You are the one trying to portray the story "differently after the fact" here.

It doesn't disturb my worldview at all to think that maybe there is more to life than immediately meets the eye. It is a little disturbing though when people ignore so much in order to make a point about one single thing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ait88Man
over a year ago

Plymouth

Excellent, Niki.

But I’m afraid you’ve wasted your time.

“There are none so blind as those who won’t see”! And unfortunately, they’re quite frequently deadly.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Excellent, Niki.

But I’m afraid you’ve wasted your time.

“There are none so blind as those who won’t see”! And unfortunately, they’re quite frequently deadly.

It's all good fun

I'm not particularly attached to changing anyone's mind. Spice of life and all that.

I do love this Douglas Adams quote though...

"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I appreciate that there were lots of amateurs involved and that they and their evidence were instrumental in making the dig happen. My understanding was that they were not considered experts and that their theories were humoured by the real experts.

The way it was portrayed was that the woman got an intuition that the body was in a particular location, they dug down, and found it. This was why people were scratching their heads saying it was mighty unusual, that the whole thing was any extraordinary long shot, and that archaeology usually doesn't work that way.

Your account is that everything was very normal, the experts knew he was likely there, the woman pointed at one spot and he turned up somewhere else, and the people who were scratching their heads were just telling porkies to help make the documentary more sensational.

As you're local and an enthusiast, I guess you must be right that people turned it into a scam by feigning that it was extremely unusual what had happened and that instead it was just another archaeological dig much like any other.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did the revisionist historian win?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Did the revisionist historian win?

If by "revisionist historian" you mean yourself, nope

I've already answered most of the points already, so forgive me if I cba to repeat myself : )

You did chuck in a strawman though. I haven't claimed that it was a "very normal" dig. It was unusual in the sense that it was a search for a king which was initiated and pushed for by a society of apologists for that king. That in itself made it something of an unusual event. It was also unusual in the amount of publicity and controversy that grew up around it. As far as locating the spot goes though, yes I would say there was little unusual about that. However badly you want there to be.

If by "location" you mean the carpark, then there was no intuition involved there. She spent seven years researching that and had a lot of academic help. If by "location" you mean the specific part of the carpark, then intuition or not, it didn't help her. They were digging the best part of a day before they came across Richard's legs, so the idea that she pointed at some "R" and hey presto there he was, is nonsense.

As for your "astronomical odds" and how likely people thought it was that they would find Richard, you might be interested to know that prior to the dig beginning, the head archaeologist on the project (Richard Buckley of Leicester University) had told Langley that the odds of finding Greyfriars and Richard's remains, based on the evidence and research that they had, were 50/50 and 9/1 respectively.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Search for Richard III dig: 'R' marks the spot where skeleton found in Leicester car park

Leicester Mercury feature

The latest astonishing twist in the extraordinary story of the search for Richard III can exclusively be revealed by the Leicester Mercury today.

The spot where a skeleton was found in August was next to a car parking space marked with an "R".

The letter was noticed by academics at the University of Leicester at the start of the dig - and it was coincidentally captured in a photograph of Greyfriars car park taken by the Leicester Mercury before the excavation began.

Mr Buckley said the team had never taken the mysterious sign seriously, but admitted it was "spooky".

"I used various sources, such as old maps and accounts from historical authors to draw up the trenches," he said.

"I admit, when we started the dig, I was sceptical – I didn't think we had much chance of finding him.

"I was more interested in finding the friary where he was supposed to have been buried.

"Philippa Langley, from the Richard III Society, was present when we were deciding where to dig, and kept telling us that R marked the spot.

"We had a joke about it, but we never for one moment thought anything would be buried underneath it."

Really Niki!? Just a quick Google and you look a wally. The woman did claim he was under the R and he was. That's what I've been saying all along. Jeez and to think you actually got me to check that

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This pisses me off. Everything I wrote about the Richard III dig has turned out to be right. I've kept to the same story and you've shifted yours.

Now we can verify that it *was* a highly unusual event. That the idea he was in the car park *was* a fringe theory held by a group of nutty apologists and amateur historians, who then largely funded the dig and made it happen. The chief historian from the University who led the dig gave them even finding the friary there 50/50 odds, let alone the body. And he said he'd eat his hat if they found Richard's remains, which he later did in the form of a hat shaped cake. But he *did* humour them as he was keen to try and find the friary and thought there was a 50% chance it could be there. The woman leading the dig from the RIII society side of things *did* have a hunch (excuse the pun) his remains would be found under a letter R that was sprayed on the tarmac. And, despite being mocked by the others, his remains *were* indeed found under that R. And at least one archaeologist involved in the dig *did* scratch his head and explain that this isn't how archaeology usually works... people don't simply point at a spot on the ground and say you'll find an important relic there and turn out to be right. It *was* an extraordinary coincidence.

I brought this up as an example of a bizarre coincidence that stretches Occam's razor to breaking point. But instead it has been a perfect example of how some people wilfully re-engineer reality to fit their confirmation bias, rather than let it be the often utterly bizarre thing it is. These same people then express their views so adamantly that it causes the rest of us to question if we were mistaken and maybe it was just something very ordinary. And if we don't bother to reacquaint ourselves with the actual events we may come under their spell and discount it.

I understand that you may feel this twisting of the story is noble, perhaps to try and give greater credit to some of the unseen work that went on by amateur unsung historians like yourself... but instead of merely improving the painting by adding new details you have whitewashed it and painted an entirely new image over it. That, to my mind, is classic revisionist history. To others with less of a memory or who can't be bothered to double check things your whitewash would replace the old reality and the world would have one less very odd coincidence in it.

I'm with Galileo. Observation over dogma. If what you observe is bizarre you must let it remain bizarre... not let dogma rewrite events as if they were totally normal instead and then push that as more true than the observations. Sorry for the rant. But this manipulation of history to try and tell something other than what happened really gets under my skin.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This pisses me off. Everything I wrote about the Richard III dig has turned out to be right. I've kept to the same story and you've shifted yours.

Lol. I give up.

You pick whatever bits you like, make whatever you want to out of it.

As if the whole event wasn't amazing enough without gluing kooky theories to it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

People and televisions can be seen and proven to exist. Gods and super powers cannot. So this is not a good example at all.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ait88Man
over a year ago

Plymouth

So who is lying, Niki who had a long term interest in the dig, or the sensationalist media trying to sell copy and a superstitious zealot?

Read the book called “The Psychology of the Psychic” by David Marks and Richard Kammann.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'd suggest that he searches and reads only the scientific literature on such powers, which likely means that there is no reputable or respected sources of statistically meaningful evidence.

In the paranormal world, there are many willing to make plenty of money from drivel, arising from misinterpreted nonsense or bossed and distorted self-reports.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"I'd suggest that he searches and reads only the scientific literature on such powers, which likely means that there is no reputable or respected sources of statistically meaningful evidence.

In the paranormal world, there are many willing to make plenty of money from drivel, arising from misinterpreted nonsense or bossed and distorted self-reports.

The way they get round that is saying that the scientific method is flawed and that they have access to realms of wisdom that mere scientists can't fathom.

Utter tosh of course.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I hope that the OP has found all this helpful

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

The things that get me about believers in the baseless and unseen is, first of all, this assumption that their entertaining of such things makes them better people than the sceptical. This sarcastic quote, from a contributor to this debate, typifies the mindset: 'That's very generous of you to believe something when it's proven'. (Who would I be being 'generous' to if I believed in evidence-bereft entities, anyway?)

Let me point out that it's guys like me who are least likely to be mounting pavements at high speed to mow people into the ground or knifing people while shouting about how great my sky wizard is, abusing children through the position of trust I've fostered for myself based on my faith, swindling old folk out of their cash at church or suppressing the education of young girls, etc. Sceptical, rational people cause less suffering, actually.

Secondly, this idea that my unbelief is a belief, just like theirs is. Really? So, if I've no interest in trainspotting, my hobby is 'not trainspotting', yeah? Come on.

Thirdly, when it matters, these people have NO FAITH anyway! If your loved one is having a heart attack or whatever,

(sorry to take it there, but …) you won't wait for your fairies (sky or garden bound) or cosmic forces to come to the rescue will you? … No, because you know it's 999 time. Reality time. And thank GOODNESS you do.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I hope that the OP has found all this helpful

I have, thank you. And you, in particular, have made a sterling contribution

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This sarcastic quote, from a contributor to this debate, typifies the mindset: 'That's very generous of you to believe something when it's proven'. (Who would I be being 'generous' to if I believed in evidence-bereft entities, anyway?)

When something is proven whether you believe in it or not is utterly redundant. It is known. If you express the cautionary remark that you *believe* the moon exists you are effectively a fruit cake who is casting doubt on something that's known. When something is known you need to grow up and know it... not believe it. That's why offering your belief only when something is known is a ridiculous statement. It should be possible to garner your mere belief based on rational argument, not final and convincing proof.

If you agree with this your position should be that you'll believe in benevolent cosmic entities when you finally meet a convincing argument for them, not when you encounter conclusive proof. This is a less radical stance that means you are someone who can be reasoned with. That's what I meant

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So who is lying, Niki who had a long term interest in the dig, or the sensationalist media trying to sell copy and a superstitious zealot?"

Niki's account makes no sense based on quotes I posted earlier and featured on Leicester University's website from the guy from Leicester University who led the dig. It also makes no sense of those who scratched their heads at the time and exclaimed that archaeology doesn't usually work this way. Niki tried to portray the dig as normal. So this view suggests those archaeologists are conning us. Having a long term interest in archaeology myself, I can't see archaeologists playing such games. So I'm happy to take them at face value, and to accept the quotes from them featured on the Leicester University website, and acknowledge that this was a very unusual archaeological dig.

I am, however, lacking accurate information on how far from the R Richard's remains were found. If it was clearly some distance away I am willing to concede that this was a media stunt, as odd as it is for archaeologists to do that. If it is within the confines of, let's say, the distance of a parked car if it was over that R I think it's only fair to acknowledge, and keep as part of the record of the dig, how unusual that was.

I only brought it up as an example of an uncanny coincidence. That's all it needs to be acknowledged as imo. It is not proof of anything supernatural. Especially as, if you caught my post earlier, the supernatural can never be proven.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

Eh?

No one is disputing that it's an uncanny coincidence. What on earth have you been arguing about?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The point being that, if this dig had been brought up in the context of a thread about archaeology, Niki would probably have never sought to reframe it as a perfectly normal dig. It was as it was brought up in relation to the issue of fairies in the garden that Niki chose to warp history and present it as something it wasn't. That's why it's impossible to reason with some people over this hot topic. People on either side are often too emotionally wrapped up in it to treat it in a fair way. The confirmation bias is simply overpowering.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Eh?

No one is disputing that it's an uncanny coincidence. What on earth have you been arguing about? "

Niki has been asserting that it was an ordinary dig, done in the usual manner. They chose the spot to dig because that was the most likely place to find Richard's remains based on all the evidence accepted by the leading experts. They dug down and found him. No surprises. Nothing odd. Nothing about a woman having a hunch about the spot and her bizarrely turning out to be right. Niki's account, in short, edits out the unusual coincidence of the event. Mine leaves it in. That, to my mind, is all we've been arguing about... editing history to match what you wish had happened rather than what did happen

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

"The point being that, if this dig had been brought up in the context of a thread about archaeology, Niki would probably have never sought to reframe it as a perfectly normal dig. It was as it was brought up in relation to the issue of fairies in the garden that Niki chose to warp history and present it as something it wasn't. That's why it's impossible to reason with some people over this hot topic. People on either side are often too emotionally wrapped up in it to treat it in a fair way. The confirmation bias is simply overpowering. "

Hang on a minute. The argument, I thought, was about whether the letter R being there was just a coincidence or whether there was something mystical going on. I took you to be arguing the latter.

Now you appear to accept it was just a coincidence. Given that, what exactly is wrong with Nikis argument.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

Eh?

No one is disputing that it's an uncanny coincidence. What on earth have you been arguing about?

What?

She has never disputed the stuff about intuitions and the R, just pointed out that was also a hell of a lot of serious research going on.

Do you really not see that no one would be allowed to dig up the centre of a major city unless they had convincing evidence that something of historical importance may well be there.

Do you really think that would be allowed on the basis of "intuition"?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I only brought it up as an example of an uncanny coincidence. That's all it needs to be acknowledged as imo. It is not proof of anything supernatural. Especially as, if you caught my post earlier, the supernatural can never be proven.

Eh?

No one is disputing that it's an uncanny coincidence. What on earth have you been arguing about?

What?

She has never disputed the stuff about intuitions and the R, just pointed out that was also a hell of a lot of serious research going on.

Do you really not see that no one would be allowed to dig up the centre of a major city unless they had convincing evidence that something of historical importance may well be there.

Do you really think that would be allowed on the basis of "intuition"? "

Of course it wasn't. That's not the uncanny coincidence I've been talking about. We now know the king was in the car park. We didn't then. It was a long shot. The guy from the University who led the dig said the chance the friary was in the car park was 50/50. If that was so the chances of finding the king was 1/9, based I assume on planning to dig up 1/9th of the total area or some such logic. He said he'd eat his hat if they found the body. That is not the opinion of an expert who's convinced by the data.

But the odds of pointing at any particular section of the car park and saying "I feel he's here" and you turning out to be right are astronomical. Yet, to my knowledge, that's what happened and it's that which I assume Niki has been trying to dismiss. Instead, Niki's account falsely turns the tables and says how odd it is that an R was above the body. This is just a minor coincidence. It was the woman pointing at the ground, saying she felt he was there, and him then turning up there which was head scratchingly uncanny. As the archaeologists said at the time, that's simply not how archaeology works. You don't point at the ground, dig, and find something.

Niki contested that this happened and, in doing so, inferred the archaeologists were perpetrating a con for a sensationalising media. Instead, to Niki's account, the body cropped up somewhere else and the woman's hunch was shown to have been wrong

So far I haven't been able to find data on that. So I'm only going on quotes from the dig leader and the other archaeologists at the time

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otpiping OP Man
over a year ago

Birmingham

"When something is proven whether you believe in it or not is utterly redundant. It is known. If you express the cautionary remark that you *believe* the moon exists you are effectively a fruit cake who is casting doubt on something that's known. When something is known you need to grow up and know it... not believe it. That's why offering your belief only when something is known is a ridiculous statement. It should be possible to garner your mere belief based on rational argument, not final and convincing proof.

Yes, in view of the topics at hand, maybe I've used the word 'believe' a little loosely. The word 'accept' would've been neater. Actually, you've been a similarly loose with your statement about it being 'utterly' redundant to believe in things that are known, for example, do you not believe in justice?

And regarding believing things based purely on the strength of argument, I've not heard any, including your considerable efforts, that convince me of cosmic entities or their obvious synonym: god, and I'll never feel bad or apologize for that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 30/08/18 16:27:49]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So far I haven't been able to find data on that. So I'm only going on quotes from the dig leader and the other archaeologists at the time "

It was "several feet" away, or "in the next bay" depending on whose words you pick. Whatever, it took them over six hours to find the first sign of Richard's remains after they started digging. I already posted all this at least once.

Does that really sound to you like Langley pointed at the spot, said "dig there", and hey presto up popped the skeleton?

" Niki has been asserting that it was an ordinary dig, done in the usual manner. They chose the spot to dig because that was the most likely place to find Richard's remains based on all the evidence accepted by the leading experts. They dug down and found him. No surprises. Nothing odd. Nothing about a woman having a hunch about the spot and her bizarrely turning out to be right. Niki's account, in short, edits out the unusual coincidence of the event. Mine leaves it in. That, to my mind, is all we've been arguing about... editing history to match what you wish had happened rather than what did happen"

I'd thank you not to twist and misquote my posts please.

Yes, I am saying it was an "ordinary dig" aside from the unusual levels of publicity and controversy around it. And the fact that it was pushed for and part-funded by the RIII Society. I'm also saying it was carried out in a normal way. Yes, they had Langley hanging around, banging on about marks on the ground and generally being histrionic about the whole thing, but the idea of the entire dig being set up and going ahead because of some hunch is demonstrable nonsense.

I said nothing about "all the leading experts" so stop twisting my posts please. I do say however that the leading academics on the project from Leicester Uni decided that there was enough evidence, backed up by solid research, to give the dig the go ahead. Buckley even says that in the documentary that you insisted everybody had to watch.

You seem very keen on this "eating his hat" stunt. Can't you see that just maybe, this was part of the whole media circus around the event? If you really do know anything at all about archaeology, then surely you must admit that 50/50 and 9/1 are actually pretty good odds of finding something?

I have most definitely not said that any archaeologists conned anybody or played any games. Again, please keep that kind of disingenuous bs to yourself and stop misrepresenting what I have said, along with your comments about my "changing history" and similar nonsense.

So, eventually all this comes down to is that you are claiming an "uncanny coincidence" based on a sprayed "R" near to where RIII was found after several hours of digging, in a location which was decided after seven years of research by Langley and others, which in turn was based on years of work by other historians, and records going right back to the 15th Century.

What about all the other "uncanny coincidences" lol. The director of the dig having the same name as the dead king and the dig taking place in the same month as Richard's death. Oo also, the car park is on New Street and Richard's death was the beginning of a NEW English dynasty. These coincidences are everywhere and every day if you look for them, they only seem meaningful with hindsight and wishful thinking.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ait88Man
over a year ago

Plymouth

OK Nikki. Some people have a rather hazy idea of what “truth” is, and are incapable of strictly logical reasoning. I think most of us are aware of this by now.

Fortunately the thread has become too long and will be closed soon, so we won’t have to waste any more on this fruitless argument.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So far I haven't been able to find data on that. So I'm only going on quotes from the dig leader and the other archaeologists at the time

It was "several feet" away, or "in the next bay" depending on whose words you pick. Whatever, it took them over six hours to find the first sign of Richard's remains after they started digging."

You'd agree that's bizarrely close to the point she said his remains were then. This explains all the remarks by the press and the archaeologists to that effect.

"Does that really sound to you like Langley pointed at the spot, said "dig there", and hey presto up popped the skeleton?"

Strictly speaking that's close enough to what happened for me. If you're able to replicate this with another missing monarch and get within several feet or a parking space then I think we would all agree it would be eerily bizarre.

"Yes, they had Langley hanging around, banging on about marks on the ground and generally being histrionic about the whole thing, but the idea of the entire dig being set up and going ahead because of some hunch is demonstrable nonsense."

I'd thank you not to twist and misquote my posts please. I never made such a claim. The only coincidence I was ever interested in was a woman pointing at a bit of ground and saying Richard III was there, them digging down, and him being there. If they had geophys type stuff showing a hunched body there then her claim would've been trite. If they had data suggesting this definitely was the site of the friary and that was the most likely location of his remains it would've been a well informed hunch. Instead none of that was the case. It was possible the friary was there. It was possible Richard III was in the friary. There was no evidence showing specifically that his remains would be where that woman pointed.

"I said nothing about "all the leading experts" so stop twisting my posts please."

You were insistent that the car park was not a fringe theory. That it was embraced as the best site for his remains to be found by the experts at the time. It wasn't.

"I have most definitely not said that any archaeologists conned anybody or played any games. Again, please keep that kind of disingenuous bs to yourself and stop misrepresenting what I have said, along with your comments about my "changing history" and similar nonsense. "

You have erased all trace, from your history of the event, of there having been an uncanny coincidence in a woman pointing at the ground and saying he's there and him turning out to be there. You only need to go back to media reports and the documentary footage to see that did actually happen. If it didn't happen, as you have claimed, it means that certain footage in the documentary, as well as quotes by the Leicester University guy who led the dig are either false or a scam to try and spice up the story. That's just the logical conclusion from denying there was anything for them to have said was weird. By taking away the weird event all you've got left is a bunch of archaeologists scratching their heads over something that didn't happen... So in that situation they would be faking it. Seeing as you think the dig was ordinary how do you explain their statements and head scratching?

"So, eventually all this comes down to is that you are claiming an "uncanny coincidence" based on a sprayed "R" near to where RIII was found after several hours of digging, in a location which was decided after seven years of research by Langley and others, which in turn was based on years of work by other historians, and records going right back to the 15th Century. "

You claim to know a lot about archaeology. Read back through that paragraph and tell me if that's not a somewhat bizarre thing to have happened. Digs have been started based on more information than that looking for entire buildings and come up empty handed. You're belittling a bizarre occurrence and trying to make it sound like it's common place in archaeology. It isn't.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Just need proper scientific research, rather than anecdotes, which a world full of billions of people will be easy to find.

Also, don't rule out your mind.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Your mind is filtering and distorting everything that your senses perceive. We're so poor at being bossed, we'll not stop - so coincidences, synchronicity etc all get thrown up as reality, as we're always looking for meaning in everything

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately