Louis Jarvis

[stphrz]

Here we go again.

"Me thinks he doth protest too much..." Sometimes our "sacred cows" are our fervent claims that we HAVE no sacred cows. So you'll forgive me if I call bullshit on you.

Of course I forgive you. I'm not even slightly offended when someone calls bullshit on me. I rather like it because it gives me a wonderful chance to state my case. Again.
In this case you are using a common reduction into absurdity fallacy.
My claim is I have no sacred cows. Your argument derives that I do have sacred cows based on the claim that I do not have sacred cows. Then you maintain that I do on the basis of your own argument. Yet to do this you have to accept my intial claim that I do not (have sacred cows).
Whew, that was tiring and pendantic I know but it illustrates the short circuit in your thought process.
Let's continue.

And I rather enjoy your advice to "get over myself" oooooo, you told me!
But that's what I was asking you and the rest of the Jarvis detractors to do...get over yourselves. You missed the message my friend, or maybe it just stung a bit too much. It's obvious by your paragraph by paragraph retort that SOMETHING got under your skin...otherwise why bother responding at 1:30 am, and at such length?

What? I didn't miss the message. I dismissed it as an irrational screed, just as I'm doing to this message. Point by point rebuttal is a good way to expose errors. I normally don't do that sort of thing. In fact your post was the first. It was the first one on this forum I read that had a major fallacy in every damned paragraph. A feat unmatched by anyone else on this forum. You broke a record! Also, I'm always awake at 1:30 am. Due to my work schedule I usually go to sleep at five or six in the morning. On my days off it varies a bit but whatever. Why bring up such an unimportant detail? Why complain about the length of my rebuttal when your original post was quite long? Am I arguing with a child?

Another part of my original message was that none of us knows a damn thing about the paranormal, yet some people like to pretend that their pet theories are the ONLY pet theories worth hearing or talking about. And when someone different like Jarvis comes along and talks about unpopular things (like the dreaded "R" word..."religion") then he's crazier than a Charles Manson themed obstetrical unit. And I just love how all of the board certified physicians here are able to diagnose Jarvis as "crazy" after listening to a single 2.5 hour podcast That's talent!

I have no problems discussing religion or other points of view. It was you in fact that used the words "religious" and "nuts" in a sentence. What theory did I present? Where did I say it was the only theory worth paying attention to. When did I ever offer an analysis of Mr. Jarvis' mental state? Good grief start making sense. Read. Comprehend. Think. Respond. Reason is not your enemy.

And I love how many of you are now lying in wait to call Jarvis' "predictions" wrong in 2011, but he was only relaying the information. He never claimed that HE could predict the future, he was talking about prophecies that have bee given to other people. So, there's that little wrinkle in the plans.

No it's not. He will still be in error. You don't get to believe in and relay an error and claim to be free of error. I'm being trolled right now aren't I. Oh well, I've started I may as well finish.

You'll note that I never indicated that Jarvis passed any of my personal "credibility tests", But he was vetted by the hosts...was he not? Sorry, but I tend to trust the judgment of a Chris O'Brien over an annonymous message boarder (or 3).

You are free to do that. But that is another fallacy. It's called an appeal to authority. I like Chris, I like his work as co-host of the Paracast. However, he is just one of many sacred cows I do not have. I have made that clear in some of my other posts on this forum. I really do think for myself. I'm not really that popular on these forums but hey that's the price. Besides, Gene wasn't buying it. You know who he is don't you?

Look, everyone has the right to question things they hear, and everyone has the right to express their opinions but people need to be held responsible for the things they say. And it's my OPINION that people who come on a paranormal message board and "diagnose" a podcast guest as "nuts", clearly based on their own disdain for his beliefs and thier unwillingness to hear opinions that don't jive with their own, are placing their own ignorance on display. And on it goes...

Dude, quit putting words in my mouth. This is another fallacy. It's called a strawman. You are attributing to me a position I do not hold, and then you attack that position. Then you accuse me of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Wow, just wow.

Originally Posted by Angel of Ioren
We need to stop defending people like Jarvis. They are storytellers at best, con artists at worst. You know those TV commercials for telephone psychics where at the end they say "for entertainment purposes only?" Well the same should be said of episodes with people like Jarvis.
The next time you have a person like Jarvis on please make sure to ask him where his prophets were when there was the earthquake in Haiti, when Katrina hit New Orleans, or when the Tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people in 2004. Honestly, if we still even provide these people with a platform, we should try our best to use it to knock them down a peg. The more people stop worrying about the end of the world, the more time they can spend living in the present.

Story tellers and con artists seem to make up a good 78.6% of the paranormal "field" (statistic inveted). Please, honestly, do you have a problem with Jarvis or with Prophecy? He never claimed to be a prophet, he STUDIES comparative prophecy/religion. He was invited on the show, asked pointed questions and he answered them based on his studies. I really have to conclude that most of you simply don't like the religious bent of the material. He never claimed to be Christ, or Mary or Buddha...He's not trying to hock a book or a movie here, he was simply asked to discuss his area of expertise and he did. So then we (as paranormal consumers) bitch because we don't like what he has to say? That's messed up people. And people are telling ME to get over myself??? Welcome to the paranormal world.

Did you listen to the same show I did? His acceptance and agreement with what he had learned was clear. Maybe he didn't make it up but he believed it. It was not a detatched academic discussion of the beliefs of others.
There is no problem with prophecy. It is either correct or not correct. If someone gives an event and a date you merely wait until the date arrives and see if the event occurs. Why do you not understand this.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You rock! Thanks for contributing your matter-of-fact analysis of the Jarvis segment and what has ensued on this thread.

Of course he rocks Chris - he isn't questioning you or your friend!

---------- Post added at 07:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

@stphrz

Good job at catching all those logical fallacies. You could give Steven Novella a run for his money. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: memberaction_dropdown -->https://www.theparacast.com/members/2176-stphrz

 

[Jeff Crowell]

So you didn't like the episode, huh ? ;-)

Well it was entertaining, and clearly it inspired forum conversation, which I think is part of a nefarious but ingenious marketing plot.

Honestly when I listen to guys like Louis I sit there and wonder, "Is he making these outrageous claims expecting people to actually believe him, or is he saying these things as part of an entertainment ploy." I genuinely cannot tell if he really believes the things he says or if he's just playinga the part. In that he reminds me of some of the things said about Mr. Gray Barker, that you really couldn't tell from day-to-day if he honestly believed in what he was saying about this phenomena. If Louis Jarvis truly believes the things he's saying then he's 'out there.'

---------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

A few comments about credibility and statements of claim. In response to a few things mentioned here on the forums, the believability of a claim has to do with the commonality of that claim. If I say, "My wife baked cookies last night," no one would dispute that. Such a claim is well within the realm of possibility (although pretty far out there if you know my wife.) I would venture to say that 99.9% of all Paracast Forum readers would believe that statement without need for further evidence. I wouldn't get bombarded with demands for physical trace evidence, like pictures of crumbs or samples of flour taken from the baking sheet. It's perfectly reasonable and logical to believe that my wife baked cookies last night, and another thing...it's irrelevant to anything. No one would care that my wife baked cookies last night so people may read it, shrug, and move on with their lives.

However, if I claim that I saw a craft in the sky that was clearly not man made, either by performance and/or design that claim is neither mundane nor irrelevant since such implications could hold meaning for everybody on this planet. That claim would come under far more scrutiny, it's not within the realm of believability from what the common man knows, understands, and has experienced in his life. People would demand trace evidence and the claim would fall under deep suspicion because of it's nature.

Now, take Louis Jarvis' claims. Regardless of his sourcing, I believe HE believes in the things he said, and he spoke of them as if they were indeed 'truth.' These claims move one level farther, piercing not only the realm of believability but the realm of sanity as well. So detailed it would make a six part novel, Louis' claims extend beyond those of UFO, ghost, or cryptozoological experiencers and witnesses. The stretch one needs to take to seriously consider Jarvis' claims as being real or true are extensive to put it mildly.

If we could give these three scenarios a number that would rank the odds of Reality or Truth in each of them, they would go something like this; 99.9, 25, and 2. Yeah.....I made those numbers up, but a LOT of that is going on in this entire thread so I figure I can get away with it. Anywho, it's been said here that Jarvis is offering an alternate explanation for UFO or paranormal phenomena but all I heard were ramblings and fantasy elements balled into an interesting story. I was given zero reason to keep Jarvis' explanations about said-phenomena on the table. Even Ted Phillips, with his extensive quantity of highly questionable data holds far more credibility in his work than Jarvis. Ted brings something tangible to the field. Louis brings pretend.

One other statement I'd like to dispute; it was said in an early post on this thread that Louis should be taken seriously because he does not believe in 2012, Roswell (as being ET related), nor the original MJ12 docs. It's illogical to give Jarvis' claims more weight just because he appears to have critical thinking skills he's applied toward other cases, or that he "goes against the grain" of popularity and disputes some very public events. This doesn't solidify Jarvis' ability to think rationally, nor does it prove he's a critical thinker over-all. If I don't believe in ghosts, that doesn't make my belief in unicorns any more valid.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Of course he rocks Chris - he isn't questioning you or your friend!

No, he rocks because he wrote out a direct, well thought out reply. There have been several of those from both sides in the last couple of days.

 

[cottonzway]

..........................

http://www.supercity.at/blog/upload/blog/2010/04/haters1.jpg

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Well it was entertaining, and clearly it inspired forum conversation, which I think is part of a nefarious but ingenious marketing plot.

Ah-ha, somebody's starting to get it! I knew 'ol Louis would set off the skeptical types around here. Maybe that's why we had him on! Guests like Louis do have a tendency to stir up passions and controversy and its interesting to watch how this thread has blossomed to 23 pages with over 4,000 views. At least you can't say his show was boring...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ah-ha, somebody's starting to get it! I knew 'ol Louis would set off the skeptical types around here. Maybe that's why we had him on! Guests like Louis do have a tendency to stir up passions and controversy and its interesting to watch how this thread has blossomed to 23 pages and over 4,000 views. At least you can't say his show was boring...

Agreed that there's nothing wrong with pushing a few buttons from time to time. It's not good to stay in a rut.

 

[stphrz]

No, he rocks because he wrote out a direct, well thought out reply. There have been several of those from both sides in the last couple of days.

Chris.

You don't have to agree with my views on anything. You don't have to like me or the way I go about posting on the forums. I could be the greatest liar on the face of the earth. It does not matter. Just look at what I'm telling you.

A statement:

Sometimes our sacred cows are our fervent claims that we HAVE no sacred cows.

Read that. Think about what i says. Context does not matter. It is a self contained self referring argument that is a swirling ball of nonsense.

It is objective evidence that his reply was not well thought out. It was the first thing he said.

 

[rhcball]

When GE or Time-Warner or whoever offers the Paracast elites mega-millions to broadcast 7 days a week, the Jarvis types will proliferate. Enjoy the moderate amount of guest quality screening while it lasts.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

When GE or Time-Warner or whoever offers the Paracast elites mega-millions to broadcast 7 days a week, the Jarvis types will proliferate. Enjoy the moderate amount of guest quality screening while it lasts.

If The Paracast moved to Clear Channel, which is probably the number one radio network in the U.S., we would likely be on five days a week. We'd need more guests, and thus tackle more subjects, but the quality screening process will not go down. Indeed, that situation would allow us to hire a full-time researcher to really help us get the goods on a guest. Sometimes the "basic research" on Google isn't enough.

I would also not have to worry about how I'll pay next month's rent anymore, and the same would be true for my co-hosts. I hope you listeners will celebrate such a development, if it happens.

 

[rhcball]

I think I would generally get enjoyment from nightly shows, but I think you have to be realistic and face a grim, grim truth--there's no way to avoid an annual show featuring Sean David Morton's prophecies for the coming year.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I think I would generally get enjoyment from nightly shows, but I think you have to be realistic and face a grim, grim truth--there's no way to avoid an annual show featuring Sean David Morton's prophecies for the coming year.

There have to be limits -- and that's way beyond any sensible limit.

 

[bmadccp]

stphrz

Imagine my surprise that you fired back a volley of condescending barbs. I wasn’t expecting that at all from you. Is it sarcasm, or not? One never can tell in this type of communication.
<O
First off, thanks for the Critical Thinking 101 refresher professor, but as you were pointing out logical fallacies in MY response, I think you conveniently forgot one of your own. An Ad Hominem fallacy is when you attack the messenger rather than (or in addition to) the message. This thread has been filled with attacks on Jarvis like “He’s nuts”, etc. And little quips like “Am I arguing with a child?” or “Reason is not your enemy” or even “Why do you not understand this?” all sort of fit the mold too. This being said let me try one more time to make my point civilly.


Of course I forgive you. I'm not even slightly offended when someone calls bullshit on me. I rather like it because it gives me a wonderful chance to state my case. Again.
In this case you are using a common reduction into absurdity fallacy.
My claim is I have no sacred cows. Your argument derives that I do have sacred cows based on the claim that I do not have sacred cows. Then you maintain that I do on the basis of your own argument. Yet to do this you have to accept my intial claim that I do not (have sacred cows).
Whew, that was tiring and pendantic I know but it illustrates the short circuit in your thought process.
Let's continue.

Yes, lets...<O</O
<O</O

Reduction into absurdity? My point is that some people’s sacred cow (belief system, in this case) IS that they subscribe to no one belief system. This is the reduction into absurdity mon frer. It’s an awfully safe place from which to launch an offensive against another person’s belief system as well, isn’t it? Agnosticism, is in itself a sort of a belief system. When people attack Jarvis for his “absurd” beliefs in things like Christianity (for one), they are displaying their own bias against the belief system. This, in itself, is a belief system. That was the point, perhaps I could have worded it better in my previous posts. As for YOUR belief system, I can’t answer to what they might be, but it’s (in my mind) absurd of one to suggest that he/she doesn’t have sacred cows. You are a human. Human’s have sacred cows. Even Einstein had sacred cows. It’s not an insult, it’s a rational observation and I’d argue (obviously) that it’s a fact. And finally, I agree with something you wrote, your focus on perceived fallacy and not substance is pedantic. <O</O

What? I didn't miss the message. I dismissed it as an irrational screed, just as I'm doing to this message. Point by point rebuttal is a good way to expose errors. I normally don't do that sort of thing. In fact your post was the first. It was the first one on this forum I read that had a major fallacy in every damned paragraph. A feat unmatched by anyone else on this forum. You broke a record! Also, I'm always awake at 1:30 am. Due to my work schedule I usually go to sleep at five or six in the morning. On my days off it varies a bit but whatever. Why bring up such an unimportant detail? Why complain about the length of my rebuttal when your original post was quite long? Am I arguing with a child?


You obviously haven’t dismissed anything. Had you dismissed it as irrational, we wouldn’t be having this exchange. Your comments suggesting that you “dismissed it as an irrational screed” and “You broke a record” are nothing more than an attempt to posture in front of your friends, sort of like giving me a “wedgie” on the playground in front of the girls. It serves no purpose except to poke at me. But it seems to be the unwritten rule on so many of these forums doesn’t it? And that’s fine, poke away, but at least be honest about your intentions. I wasn’t complaining about the length of your rebuttal, I was using it as an example that you have obviously invested yourself into this fruitless exchange, as it seems (unfortunately) I have too. And now we are both reticent to let it go because egos have been brought into the fight. In other words, it’s become personal. <O</O

to be continued...</O

 

[bmadccp]

...continued


I have no problems discussing religion or other points of view. It was you in fact that used the words "religious" and "nuts" in a sentence. What theory did I present? Where did I say it was the only theory worth paying attention to. When did I ever offer an analysis of Mr. Jarvis' mental state? Good grief start making sense. Read. Comprehend. Think. Respond. Reason is not your enemy.
<O</O
Here is where we run into the spoiled fruit of this exchange. My initial post wasn’t directed at any one particular individual, you are the one that engaged me. I never said that YOU presented a theory, I remarked on the general disdain for Jarvis’ theory/beliefs and suggested that no one theory was more correct than another in the paranormal, unless I missed an important scientific paper along the way somewhere. Reason is not my enemy, that’s cute. I’ll have to remember that.

<O</ONo it's not. He will still be in error. You don't get to believe in and relay an error and claim to be free of error. I'm being trolled right now aren't I. Oh well, I've started I may as well finish.<O</O
<O</O

So by your “logic”, I should hold my 8 year old son responsible on December 26<SUP>th</SUP> for his belief in Santa Clause? Or does he get to remain “error free”? Secondly, who says that he will be in error? Do you have direct contact with God-almighty, cluing you into the events of the future? This is the point...you seem to KNOW that Jarvis is wrong, I’m just curious as to how you KNOW this? You don’t KNOW it, you BELIEVE it, and that my friend is a “sacred cow”. And is being “trolled” a new thing? Is it like being “Rick Rolled” or “Punked”? I’m not familiar with the trolled thing. Please don’t explain.

to be continued...

 

[bmadccp]

...continued


You are free to do that. But that is another fallacy. It's called an appeal to authority. I like Chris, I like his work as co-host of the Paracast. However, he is just one of many sacred cows I do not have. I have made that clear in some of my other posts on this forum. I really do think for myself. I'm not really that popular on these forums but hey that's the price. Besides, Gene wasn't buying it. You know who he is don't you?

This is where the text book will only hold you back. IF Chris were an authority figure in my life, you would still be in error. First of all, he’s not, he’s a guy who co-hosts my second favorite paranormal show. There is a big difference between appealing to authority and trusting someone’s judgment. If Chris were a mental health expert who certified that Jarvis is free of mental illness, and I based my judgment of Jarvis’ mental state on Chris’s assertion, this would be an appeal to authority. He’s not a mental health expert, therefore not an authority on this particular matter.<O</O
<O</O

I don’t doubt that you think for yourself, but I sense that you occasionally suffer from thinking only ABOUT yourself as well. This is only an observation, and not a judgment on your values as a human. I get a strong sense that you aren’t interested in truly listening to the opinions of others, especially when they don’t gel with yours. You would rather mock and toss around weak interpretations of what you perceive to be flawed logic. But your perception that my logic is flawed displays another of your “sacred cows”.
<O</O
<O</O

And call me kooky but I can’t imagine why you would be unpopular on these forums, maybe it’s because your posts reek of condescension or maybe it’s because you make things personal and attack the messenger rather than focus on the message. But then, I may have rubbed you the wrong way and “Besides, Gene wasn’t buying it. You know who he is don’t you?” Cute. Firstly, Gene is the host of the show. I’ve heard every single episode, the good and the bad. Gene was undoubtedly instrumental in allowing Jarvis to be in his show, don’t you suppose. Gene himself has boasted about the Paracast “vetting” its guests, unlike so many other shows. Are you suggesting that Gene didn’t “vet” Jarvis based on his skepticism on air? Only Gene can answer these questions, but I haven’t heard very many people ask. Whether or not Gene “bought” Jarvis’ stories, he certainly SOLD Jarvis to his audience, you can’t argue that. So in a sense, maybe we should be holding Gene more responsible than Jarvis. Wasn’t it you who wrote: “You don't get to believe in and relay an error and claim to be free of error.” Maybe Gene didn’t believe in the error, but he was instrumental (ultimately responsible) for relaying that error. So where’s the unjustified backlash against Gene? At the end of the day, the Paracast isn’t a purveyor of fact and reason, it’s ultimately an mode of entertainment. The consumers have every right to voice their opinions if the entertainment isn’t “entertaining” but no one (in my opinion) has the right to personally attack the guest after he was good enough to accept an invitation and discuss his beliefs. Attack the material all you want, but don’t call the man “bat-shit crazy” because of it. That would be fallacious. AGAIN: I’m not saying that YOU did this, but YOU responded to me initial post so that’s why I’m making this comment here again.<O</O

to be continued yet again...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Having a guest on the show never means I'm selling the guest. If they appear to have something interesting to say, they will be considered, but I will never validate any guest as being a source for truth. There are far too many opinions out there, and it's a good thing to hear many of them, so you listeners can decide what to believe or disbelieve.

 

[bmadccp]

....continued

Dude, quit putting words in my mouth. This is another fallacy. It's called a strawman. You are attributing to me a position I do not hold, and then you attack that position. Then you accuse me of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Wow, just wow.

I don’t believe that I was putting words in your mouth, but if you took it that way, I apologize. I don’t think I need to get into the whole fallacy thing again. I didn’t attribute a position to you, YOU did. You did so in your decision to jump onto my post and tear it apart. I didn’t once call YOU out or say anything like: “That stphrz...he believes that Jarvis is a flaming homosexual, so let’s all jump on stphrz!” But you took it upon yourself to be a spokesperson for the thread at large by responding the way you did to my post. How can you argue that you didn’t? None of this would be going on if you had just left it alone, or if you had to say something, you wrote something like: “Geez bmadccp, I certainly don’t agree with you, and I feel that you have arrived at some of your points in error, but I respect your right to express your opinion...let’s hash this out nicely, without ad hominem attacks” When you throw a stone at a person, you ARE in fact taking a position, whether you state your position or not. The critical thinking textbook doesn’t say it, but that’s how it works. <O
<O

Did you listen to the same show I did? His acceptance and agreement with what he had learned was clear. Maybe he didn't make it up but he believed it. It was not a detatched academic discussion of the beliefs of others.
There is no problem with prophecy. It is either correct or not correct. If someone gives an event and a date you merely wait until the date arrives and see if the event occurs. Why do you not understand this. <O</O
<O
Did I listen to the same show? I hope so. If we are talking about two different shows (let alone, different episodes) we have both made a giant mistake. His acceptance and agreement with what he had learned was clear...indeed it was. But he was PRESSED to give a date. I DO believe that he was in error to commit himself to such, but if you listen again carefully, you will note that Gene more or less backed him into a corner for a date. Thus, I can more easily dismiss this than you (and others) can. But the more important point here is that you (nor anyone else) know for a fact that he is wrong YET so you should ALL stop assuming that he’s a loon. At least until 5/13/2011 (or whatever date he gave). Unless the people on this board can time travel, they have no way of knowing if this prophecy is right or wrong. Even when you factor in other prophecies that you interpret as incorrect, this is basic statistics. If you flip a coin 100 times and it lands “heads up” each time, it’s still 50/50 on the 101<SUP>st</SUP> flip. Dust off that text book again and look up “appeal to ridicule” in the fallacy section


and the last one...

 

[bmadccp]

...the last one.

“There is no problem with prophecy. It is either correct or not correct. If someone gives an event and a date you merely wait until the date arrives and see if the event occurs. Why do you not understand this?” <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o> </o>
Wemay simply have to agree to disagree on some things, this being one of them. You believe that I’m the one not getting it, and I believe that you are the one not getting it. It’s suggestive of communication breakdown and I will certainly claim my share of the blame for that. But I’m not going to be bullied on a paranormal message board, and allow aspersions to be cast upon my ability to comprehend and reason go on with impunity. I believe that we can debate the details of my initial post without resorting to name calling or appeals to common practice on these boards (which is another type of fallacy btw). <o></o>


I really am sorry for having to break this lengthy post into separate blocks, it was frustrating to copy and past all of this. I assume that it was far too long for one single post. And stphrz, I really don't want to come across as a person wishing to engage in a prolonged debate about this. I don't think I'll change your mind and you won't change mine. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser to this debate. But its up to you how you want to continue.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I really don't want to come across as a person wishing to engage in a prolonged debate about this

Well that went out the window when you stretched your reply across several posts...

 

[Decker]

Well that went out the window when you stretched your reply across several posts...

Well Angelo, that was rather "smarmy" wasn't it? I thought he made one hell of a great argument.

Decker