Except that many of the above posters you label “Believers (in what (G believes) does not exist)” did “see” before “believing”, according to their own accounts.
10 Likes
Yes, I agree with the poster above, the AC deniers outnumber the people who embrace it… believe in it, whatever and want to share their stories. The haters/deniers are out over and over again on this topic to try to convince everyone its hokum. What I find amusing is none of you realize how mean spirited and petty it comes off as.
Fun times.
5 Likes
Well, it is a discussion, not a place only for believers, so we discuss?
There is no “hate”, to think that is a little out there.
Just the facts as some see it, just as others are telling facts as they see them.
There should be room for all in discussions, not just one side.
5 Likes
You are discussing? It appears like you are presenting evidential posts over and over again against ACs rather than discussing @Bluey.
First your aunt, something else discouraging and finally a book detailing grifter schemes. I would consider this more of an argument than discussion.
Discussion usually means taking both sides into consideration. I have done that. I have agreed there are scammers, but I also insist there is a real communication going on with certain authentic individuals. Not one of you deniers has even taken that possibility under consideration. I rest my case.
10 Likes
I didn’t describe anyone as a victim.
If the person who paid for the service (not me) hired the communicator based on the kind of references you describe and were happy with the services they received, has anyone been victimized? If the client went on to recommend the same communicator to others, how do we know if that reference is a reliable indicator of the communicator’s ability, and not just the client’s biases or beliefs?
Which gets us back to how to distinguish “actual” communicators from what you call “shills”. When I’m looking for a horse trainer, I don’t just collect references from other riders in my discipline. I look for observable evidence of the trainer’s effectiveness – for example, how horses they’ve trained and students they’ve taught perform at shows. I see no way to do that with a communicator, as so much of the what they’re selling is unverifiable/unfalsifiable.
I think it’s silly to expect others to flag their experiences as exceptional, merely because they don’t conform to an internet stranger’s expectations. If you want to talk about things that don’t do anyone any good, I think assuming that all unsatisfying communicator experiences are hoaxes and all satisfying ones are authentic is right up there with the lack of discernment on my part that you find so disappointing.
8 Likes
Why would you assume I don’t consider both sides?
Of course I do and find one lacking, explain why and that is what I posted about.
Other’s opinions are opposite and present why with their stories.
That is a discussion.
7 Likes
We are humans, with all the flawed, limited methods of thinking and behaving that goes along with that. Look around the world to see us in action…lots of good stuff going on but enough egotistical, selfish crap to prove our inadequacies as a species.
With that in mind it’s remarkable (to me) that anybody would stand firm on a position that something doesn’t exist, other than if definitively proven not to, ie; flat earth. I don’t believe in god(s), my right and all that but I’d be personally disappointed if I found myself arguing that they don’t exist. Not provable one way or another. They just don’t for me.
AC is similar to that in my mind, although I do think there’s more to it than religion. For no other reason than at least the animal is in front of me, I know they communicate, and nobody knows for sure all of the intricacies of that communication.
More steps up the ladder for my logical brain.
7 Likes
[B]From Wikipedia (just because that is easiest, and it says it well)
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”[/B] was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. Its roots are much older, however, with the French mathematician Laplace stating that: “The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.”[SUP][1][/SUP] Also, David Hume wrote in 1748: “A wise man … proportions his belief to the evidence”, and “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”[SUP][2][/SUP] and Marcello Truzzi says: “An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.”[SUP][3][/SUP]
Either way, the phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.
The evidence put forth by proponents of such things as gods, ghosts, the paranormal, and UFOs is highly questionable at best and offers little in the way of proof. Even if we accepted what evidence there is as valid (and it is highly debatable if we should), limited and weak evidence is not enough to overcome the extraordinary nature of these claims."
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” - Carl Sagan
The person making the extraordinary claim is the one who is obligated to provide the evidence supporting that claim.
5 Likes
On my phone and this is becoming tedious.
The examples of choosing professionals I gave you were merely examples. Nothing I have said about how people choose people to work for them is cast in stone, but simply examples. I wouldn’t dare to presume to refer you to anyone or tell anyone how to choose people for hire. I was only suggesting there are more refined ways of finding people who are authentic to the task at hand including ACs. All people who call themselves with a title are not necessarily self-representing themselves accurately… example… so I threw trainers in there, assuming the analogy would be grasped.
Every time someone brings up an AC every AC story about a wingnut comes out of the woodwork to compare contrast and make fun of the profession. If every time someone brought up the subject of trainers and people began telling stories about bad trainer experiences and drawing inferences that all trainers were as bad as those they had experiences with it would sound looney tunes. But it’s ok to denigrate all AC’s? Another analogy.
Pardon me. Did I say my experiences were exceptional? No, only that I felt they were authentic. I related stories to share, not to be ridiculed. People do that in this forum. Both actually… and unfortunately
Since there are no experiences good, bad or otherwise that would open your mind to this possibility, and you assume all ACs are grifters, I doubt there is anything further for me to say.
You can have the last word if you so desire. Goodbye internet stranger.
7 Likes
@Beck Even where something cannot be proven nor disproven? I’m not a scientist so I’m not acquainted with any of the strict guidelines around this, but I’m always willing to learn.
However I think it’s fair for people to have beliefs without feeling obligated to provide empirical evidence of existence, as long as it’s not affecting anyone else and of course, public policy.
A number of people are saying AC works for them and their animals … I say high five. My feeling is that in general we don’t know yet what we don’t know and I actually hope there’s something to it because how wonderful would that be.
10 Likes
Lacking what? Proof? No one but an authentic AC could do that, and if you are religious or so rigid in your belief system it would be impossible even if they could give you info that would authenticate communication. There would always be some other explanation you’d try to formulate.
It’s sort of funny, in my experience that’s what the overly religious and under-spiritual/overly logical have in common and that is a rejection that animals could have memories and thoughts that can be tapped into. I believe the overly religious feel that it might challenge their belief that animals have no souls and the other camp cannot believe or conceptualize anything they can’t explain logically or do themselves, even in theory. Not even mildly entertain the possibility… despite evidence to the contrary (see animal grief thread)
It is an open mind that so many claim to have but don’t utilize is my issue. I don’t expect to convince anyone, but all I wanted was for a few to entertain the possibility and not reject so completely. If a few animals benefit it would be a good thing.
Stick a fork in me, I’m done. Bye.
5 Likes
It’s certainly OK to be open-minded, but not so much your brains fall out. 
There is a logical fallacy, or loophole if you will, that’s the hidden mechanism by which a great many “alternative and complementary” therapies seem to work. It’s the fact that it’s scientifically impossible to prove a negative.
A reiki “master” comes to your barn, talking about energy meridians and chakra balancing and proceeds to wave her hands 6" above your horse’s possible sore back, while chanting mantra etc. Maybe your horse acts differently the next day, or you’ve talked yourself into thinking so. That’s because most musculoskeletal sorenesses are very self-limiting and of brief duration. Or maybe it wasn’t his back at all. Maybe he rolled on a rock. He was going to get better whether you did anything–reiki, DMSO, magnetic blanket, or nothing–the “treatment” “worked” by pure luck and power of suggestion and because of the timing.
Reiki gal swears ki, meridians, and chakra are as real as your face. So far, no science we currently posess can prove it’s true, but we also can’t prove it ISN’T, because it’s impossible to prove a negative. No experimental evidence exists in support of her theory, but no experimental evidence is capable of showing it’s not possible either. This is a logical lacuna you could drive a 55-foot VAN through. Backwards! And its exploitation supports a comfortable living in multiple “helping” industries. Including the horoscopes in your local newspaper.
If your funds are limited, the question you should be asking is biological plausibility. There needs to be a recognizable pathway by which a treatment would work. Right now “CBD” is the new rage, because first cousin to pot. But as of now, no evidence beyond anecdote and sales pitch exists that shows rubbing hemp juice on a sore part “works” any better than rubbing dandelion juice or cucumber juice or avocado juice. How is this supposed to be working? What is the biological pathway thereby altered, and how? Neurological, circulatory, inflammatory, immune, digestive? For it to work, it has to be working by some identifiable means. Which is why it’s a great idea to ask your vet if it’s actually beneficial and proven effective. You need to ask the same about many of the meds vets recommend, too! The trouble with biologically improbable magical thinking is it’s mostly “good” at causing dollars to fly magically out of your checkbook.
It is the business of “practitioners” to make you happy. If you think your horse is “better,” and you’re now happy, and can afford the fee, no harm done. However, PLEASE do not confuse psychic reading, hand-waving, crystal hanging, perfume dropping or Gwyneth Paltrow’s jade eggs with anything like evidence-based care. The Placebo Effect and power of suggestion are VERY strong, and means this stuff is best filed under “entertainment.”
11 Likes
First of all, in this season of heat and humidity, my brain keeps translating AC as air conditioning and the momentary thought that it somehow doesn’t exist is freaking me out.😳
I’ll toss two two things into this heady mixture just for the heck of it. Empirical evidence has shown horses can quite easily be taught to pick their own blankets according to weather conditions. The second study shows they are highly attuned to human emotions revealed through facial expressions and react accordingly. There is no question they have complex emotional lives we don’t fully understand. Do they grieve? Probably at some level. Can they communicate with some people on a hyper attuned level? I don’t know but…maybe it’s safest to leave that possibility open.
Hunkering down behind my central air unit. Heaven help me, I’m going to hit post.
19 Likes
AC, as in air conditioning, does not exist in my home, so I’m a little jealous of you at the moment!
That said, animal communication of the sort you seem to describe – animals living complex emotional lives and communicating to each other and people through a suite of behaviors and expressions which may be rather subtle – absolutely exists in my home. I’m not convinced about the existence of some special, extrasensory communication channels into which only capital-C communicators can tap, however.
I think you win the thread for most reasonable and open-minded post, so no need to hunker down!
10 Likes
Given how you communicate with other humans, I’m growing less likely to trust your instincts about animal communication.
I described my experience and how it impacted my beliefs. When you pressed me to characterize my experience as something exceptional, I asked you to clarify how I would be able to discern an exceptional hoax from an authentic communicator. I’m still curious.
People post about unsatisfactory trainer experiences all the time. And yet, the masses haven’t lost faith in the ability of people to train horses. Have you ever thought about why the two topics differ?
When sharing an experience and perspective engenders gatekeeping responses, it’s hard to take it as an invitation to open one’s mind. If you want to interpret my experience, beliefs, and questions as denigration of the entirety of animal communication, that’s your choice. If you think that disagreement is the same thing is ridicule, well, then, good luck out there on the interwebs, stranger.
6 Likes
This thread isn’t about Reiki. That is more new age odd than I would want to discuss, because it doesn’t interest me and although I would like to believe in healing energy as a “thing” it’s not substantial enough to pursue for my taste. This thread isn’t about ESP or ghosts or what lies beyond. it’s about animal communicators, which is totally different from all of that other stuff. I understand why a skeptic would lump them all together, shows a lack of imagination tho. Seriously.
5 Likes
Of all the “evidence” of the facts of an event the testimony of the “eye witness” is among the least reliable. I was trained as a Safety Officer (Aircraft Accident Investigation primary, other general accidents secondary; lots of OJT as an investigator of medical mishaps as a Claims Attorney). Even people with specific training in an area of expertise can make significant errors in observation. Very, very few people actually “lie” about an event. Most simply mis-understand, and consequently mis-state, elements of what they see.
Google “unreliability of eye witnesses” and be prepared to spend some time reading. Much of the research comes from the Criminal Law area but it’s very reliable on the general issue.
When you add a profit motive then we have an affirmative motivation to mis-state to the already low level of this type of testimony.
This does not make the skeptic, or even unbeliever, a “hater” or other complete failure as a human being. Just that, as noted by Dr. Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The observations of an often distraught observer of a an event do not rise to Dr. Sagan’s level of proof.
In truth, the very phrase “seeing is believing” is very often false. Maybe a better one is “believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see.”
G.
8 Likes
Right after that study came out, I attended a presentation by a university researcher who studies equine behavior. The main focus of the presentation was clicker training, but she also discussed some other research on equine behavior and took questions. I asked about that study.
She was familiar with the researchers and the study. She expressed some concerns about the study and said that she felt that there was some unconscious signalling via body language on the part of the researchers and the horses were picking up on that rather than making truly independent selections.
She then talked about Clever Hans and the lessons learned from that situation about how to conduct research on the cognitive abilities of animals. Link to short summary for those of you not familiar with the story of Clever Hans:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921203/
So, no, there is not good empirical evidence that horses can be taught to independently select their own blankets according to weather conditions.
3 Likes
NoSuchPerson, if the researcher you mentioned only “felt” the research on blanket choice wasn’t empirical, then that wasn’t very empirical of her.😊 it would be interesting to have the study replicated for sure. Clever Hans must be some sort of record holder, he’s been trotted out so often to back up arguments about cued responses, he must be lame in all four by now. Not that it’s not a good example, just a bit tired from overuse.
6 Likes
