Animal Communicator, Lidia Hiby

[JGHIRETIRE]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8398988]
A court room and a laboratory have a lot in common. In both places facts are averred and then tested. We can argue about semantics but the reality is that there is little difference between the two.

Cloaking AC and other perceived methods of non-physical communication in the raiment of “science” and using the terminology of “science” does not make it “science.”

And worse, it does nothing for the horse, that allegedly is the Object of the Exercise.

Again, there has yet to be any proof that there is a “there” there. All there has been are links to places that have proved nothing and long diatribes on how those who reject the content of those links have “closed minds.” That’s just a combination of table pounding and ad hominem.

The hard fact is that AC beyond the normal interaction of horse and handler has been postulated but never, as in NEVER, proven.

G.[/QUOTE]

There is no real proof of God either.

[JGHIRETIRE]

[QUOTE=Lady Eboshi;8399751]
Perhaps the question we should be asking is:

Why do so many people feel a NEED to believe in something so sketchy?[/QUOTE]

Just a thought - maybe they feel it works for them. I don’t understand why everyone is in such an uproar over what someone else believes.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=JGHIRETIRE;8401086]
There is no real proof of God either.[/QUOTE]

So what? God isn’t a player, here.

You should receive a 15 yard penalty and loss of down for irrelevancy.

G.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=JGHIRETIRE;8401087]
Just a thought - maybe they feel it works for them. I don’t understand why everyone is in such an uproar over what someone else believes.[/QUOTE]

For the same reason folks get upset at the Big Lick Walker and want Federal legislation to end it?

G.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8399739]
Of course you can prove a negative. It’s the same experiment, just different hypothesis.[/QUOTE]

Here, have some fun with this one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell's_Teapot

It does apply equally to animal communicators, the topic on hand.

[uphill]

Every time this subject comes up I get mad. I am reminded of an acquaintance who called an AC when her elderly dog went missing. AC told her the dog was “having a last fling and not to worry” Long story short, she was lying in ditch in the cold rain not able to get out but still alive. Someone accidentally found her. Really?? So not fair to the dog. Had I known I would have been out there looking…how far can an old dog go??

It’s only $40 , I would do it as a last ditch effort and take the reading and advice with a heaping serving of salt and not doing anything which may further harm the horse.

[SendenHorse]

[QUOTE=Bluey;8401339]
Here, have some fun with this one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell's_Teapot

It does apply equally to animal communicators, the topic on hand.[/QUOTE]

But I do have proof and validation, that satisfies my need to know if that particular person is a nutjob. (not to mention references)

Also, just because you prove person X is true, that is not going to test all the ACs out there.

So my opinion stands-- get a reading with 5 different ACs. Go in with an open mind.

See if you still think that same way after actually experiencing what you are so against. Do you own study and take accountability for things and not just expect others to do your work for you.

uphill describes perfectly why I said buyer beware. Do your homework, don’t go with some random internet AC.

I get the idea of testing the big picture idea of “do animals talk to us?” but I already have had them communicate with me, so this is not something I need to test. I think those who are against ACs could see the most elegantly proposed and tested experiments, showing that yes they do communicate, and would find some reason to doubt. I think the arguments of needing evidence are a cop out, really. It’s not about that at all. Any time we have shared stories you immediately dismiss everything as just nonsense-- you would do the same for any lab study.

You have too much of a bias to change your mind. And that is really sad because I think there are a lot of benefits to understanding horses in this new way,

Do you honestly think some of us are dumb enough to follow just anyone? Please! We are open minded but not idiots!

[Guilherme]

Those of us who are skeptical are not “against ACs.” We’re for “truth in advertising and performance.”

G.

[JGHIRETIRE]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8401193]
So what? God isn’t a player, here.

You should receive a 15 yard penalty and loss of down for irrelevancy.

G.[/QUOTE]

Is there proof of God?? No, and I call personal foul.

[JGHIRETIRE]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8401683]
Those of us who are skeptical are not “against ACs.” We’re for “truth in advertising and performance.”

G.[/QUOTE]

You are not just skeptical but down right rude about - not “you” in particular the “you” in general.
No one wants to hear the good stories about an AC and yes there are some. All it has been is a pile on why people that have used them are ridiculous.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=JGHIRETIRE;8401990]
You are not just skeptical but down right rude about - not “you” in particular the “you” in general.
No one wants to hear the good stories about an AC and yes there are some. All it has been is a pile on why people that have used them are ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

The local library is full of good stories. It also separates them by fact and fiction.

I will admit to a stronger feeling than some about the issue 'cause I’ve seen one hurt by an owner’s reliance upon AC (along with a few other silly things). The horse had a deep systemic infection that ultimately caused blindness. The owner then lost interest and horse went to kill buyer to recover some of the unpaid boarding charges.

Not all the stories have “storybook” endings.

G.

[downen]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8402026]

I will admit to a stronger feeling than some about the issue 'cause I’ve seen one hurt by an owner’s reliance upon AC (along with a few other silly things). The horse had a deep systemic infection that ultimately caused blindness. The owner then lost interest and horse went to kill buyer to recover some of the unpaid boarding charges.

Not all the stories have “storybook” endings.

G.[/QUOTE]

Just curious, then. If I hear of a farrier that has royally screwed up horses. Should I assume all farriers are frauds then?

[JGHIRETIRE]

[QUOTE=Guilherme;8402026]
The local library is full of good stories. It also separates them by fact and fiction.

I will admit to a stronger feeling than some about the issue 'cause I’ve seen one hurt by an owner’s reliance upon AC (along with a few other silly things). The horse had a deep systemic infection that ultimately caused blindness. The owner then lost interest and horse went to kill buyer to recover some of the unpaid boarding charges.

Not all the stories have “storybook” endings.

G.[/QUOTE]

It doesn’t matter sometimes whether an AC is involved or not. There can just be unhappy endings.

[Minerva]

[QUOTE=downen;8402043]
Just curious, then. If I hear of a farrier that has royally screwed up horses. Should I assume all farriers are frauds then?[/QUOTE]

No, because farriers are producing physical proof of their skill, or lack thereof, in their work. You can see for yourself whether they are good or not based upon what they produce, as long as you have a basic understanding of the hoof.

If farriers worked by squinting really hard at your horse’s feet and then telling you that they have telekinetically manipulated its legs in order to have perfect balance so that they wear perfectly on their own, and then your horse develops long toes and cracks, sure. But I haven’t heard of any farriers that work that way yet.

And regarding Neuroquantology, since it has been referenced: No, it is most certainly not a reputable, academic source, in case that wasn’t obvious. :lol: It is the pet project of an individual and is privately funded by him. It is unaffiliated with any institution. He tries to make it seem scientific and legitimate but alas, scholars and scientists aren’t biting. I cannot imagine why. It is a useful tool though. My university uses it to demonstrate to the undergraduates that just because a website claims to be something (in this case, a legitimate source of scientific information) and uses the right terms, such as “peer-reviewed,” does not mean that it is true. :lol:

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Minerva;8402081]
No, because farriers are producing physical proof of their skill, or lack thereof, in their work. You can see for yourself whether they are good or not based upon what they produce, as long as you have a basic understanding of the hoof.

If farriers worked by squinting really hard at your horse’s feet and then telling you that they have telekinetically manipulated its legs in order to have perfect balance so that they wear perfectly on their own, and then your horse develops long toes and cracks, sure. But I haven’t heard of any farriers that work that way yet.

And regarding Neuroquantology, since it has been referenced: No, it is most certainly not a reputable, academic source, in case that wasn’t obvious. :lol: It is the pet project of an individual and is privately funded by him. It is unaffiliated with any institution. He tries to make it seem scientific and legitimate but alas, scholars and scientists aren’t biting. I cannot imagine why. It is a useful tool though. My university uses it to demonstrate to the undergraduates that just because a website claims to be something (in this case, a legitimate source of scientific information) and uses the right terms, such as “peer-reviewed,” does not mean that it is true. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Well, someone claiming to be a scientist was presenting that as proof, so there you go, the proof believers need.

When you start believing on faith, no proof needed, well, you can believe ANYTHING.

[Guilherme]

[QUOTE=Minerva;8402081]
No, because farriers are producing physical proof of their skill, or lack thereof, in their work. You can see for yourself whether they are good or not based upon what they produce, as long as you have a basic understanding of the hoof.

If farriers worked by squinting really hard at your horse’s feet and then telling you that they have telekinetically manipulated its legs in order to have perfect balance so that they wear perfectly on their own, and then your horse develops long toes and cracks, sure. But I haven’t heard of any farriers that work that way yet.

And regarding Neuroquantology, since it has been referenced: No, it is most certainly not a reputable, academic source, in case that wasn’t obvious. :lol: It is the pet project of an individual and is privately funded by him. It is unaffiliated with any institution. He tries to make it seem scientific and legitimate but alas, scholars and scientists aren’t biting. I cannot imagine why. It is a useful tool though. My university uses it to demonstrate to the undergraduates that just because a website claims to be something (in this case, a legitimate source of scientific information) and uses the right terms, such as “peer-reviewed,” does not mean that it is true. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Very well said.

G.

[Countrywood]

The comparison to belief in God or spirituality in general is ludicrous.

The miracle of life, the very existence of the universe and natural world are what lead people to believe in god. The furies and wonder of nature as well as connection to our past can lead to a sense of spirituality. Organized religion is another topic but comparing AC to a belief in god or faith is absurd.

Believing in an AC is more akin to believing in psychics, fortune tellers, mediums and similar Some of them apparently display flashes of institution but beyond that, nothing of substantive evidence or proof in all the centuries this kind of thing has been around.

[Ace1]

Countrywood - *psychics? I’m guessing you do believe in physics (I bet that’s another case of autocorrect coming in to ‘save the day!’).

[Countrywood]

Lol thanks!

[Ace1]

Sorry…I just had to be that person this morning.