Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Are Skeptics And Believers Both Wrong?

paranormal ghosts demons parapsychology

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 MacQdor

MacQdor

    Residual Haunting

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 December 2015 - 07:46 PM

ARE SKEPTICS AND BELIEVERS BOTH WRONG?
By Horace Barlow


Posted Image


An earlier version of this article was presented as an after-dinner lecture
at the SPR’s Conference at Clare College, Cambridge in September 2001


Quote

ONE OF THE REASONS for being interested in parapsychology is the astonishing conflict of opinion about
it. How can there be such a wide divergence of views among intelligent, well-educated, people? Both
sides think they are forming rational judgments on the evidence available, yet they reach totally
incompatible conclusions.
Surely there must be something wrong with the way we form our beliefs if this
can happen. You may point to similar differences in religion — but that’s largely because people are
brought up in different ways. Similarly with politics — but that’s largely because different people have
different interests. I can’t see any easy explanation with parapsychology, so I want to look at what might
be wrong about the ways that both skeptics and believers form their beliefs.

I’m not going to be concerned here with the question whether believers and/or skeptics are right or
wrong in particular cases. That requires a lot of detailed information, different in every case, and now is
not the time to attempt it. I’m concerned with how each side reaches its conclusions, and especially the
possible reasons for each side being mistaken. And I’m going to start with believers, because I think we
can agree about some of the problems here.

Some of the mistakes of some believers

MANY PEOPLE SIMPLY don’t understand that the truth or otherwise of a statement or claim can often be
tested. Instead they think that making a judgement is just a matter of pulling out a check list of what is true
and false, and deciding accordingly. Unfortunately they are often right in this alternative view, but still it
is important to know that beliefs can be tested. Let me this illustrate with an anecdote:

Princess Diana visited the Physiology Lab in Cambridge a few years ago because one of the charities
she was interested in was supporting a new lab being set up in it. During the course of her visit she
mentioned that she had consulted her horoscope that morning, and the stars predicted the success of the
lab. But she then apologized, saying “but of course I have forgotten that you scientists don’t believe that
astrology can predict anything at all”, and then added “but I never understand why you believe that the
moon predicts the tides if don’t believe the stars can predict anything”.

Actually I wish we had more such saucy and provocative thoughts from our own students, but at least
she knew, or said she knew, that she did not understand the difference between horoscopes and predicting
tides. She did rather indicate that academics only accept an attribution of causality if the postulated cause
is on a check list of acceptable causes, but the important thing is that the princess seemed to be completely
unaware that it is possible to check if predictions are correct or not. We should not blame this on her, for
the education reserved in this country for our future princesses probably lacked instruction in testing the
accuracy of theoretical predictions. Furthermore we should not really blame this on the educational system
either because, until recently, all education would have lacked it.

Probability theory is only a few centuries old, and statistics have only been widely used in the last
century — and there are still controversies about its basis among the experts. I was not taught any
statistics at school, and thinking statistically was rare among my teachers when I was an undergraduate.
It’s not surprising that large sections of the educated public have no idea at all about the technical or
mathematical aspects.


Quote

Of course lack of such academic under-standing does not prevent people making sound and wise
judgments from their own experience; indeed for many purposes, using one’s own powers of observation
and one’s native wit is better than statistical testing,
because it can be done much more rapidly and applied
to a much wider range of possible hypotheses. But there has been a revolution in understanding the basis
for judgments of this type. Because of the Newtonian revolution in understanding celestial mechanics
Laplace said, about the role of God in the motions of the heavenly bodies, “I see no need for that
hypothesis”. In the same way there is now no need to postulate any mysterious or hidden processes in
making sound judgments: it is a matter of collecting the relevant evidence, estimating prior probabilities,
and deciding in accordance with probabilities correctly calculated from this information. There is,
however, a snag in doing this that I’ll come to in a moment.


Professor Horace Barlow

Many of you are knowledgeable, critical, and take a great deal of trouble to form such critical
judgments, so, common though it is, failure to understand the statistical basis for decision making
certainly does not account for all belief in the paranormal. I think there is a basic weakness in the formation of all our beliefs,

Quote

but this applies equally to the skeptical viewpoint, so I want to consider next a
very general defect of the skeptic's argument that arises from the snag alluded to above.
The sin of the skeptics


Quote

THE SKEPTICS MAIN mistake is their pathetic faith in the validity of the rationalist approach. Reason may
be the best guide in an uncertain world, but it does not lead to infallibly correct decisions, simply because
we never have enough evidence to reach infallible decisions:
you have to fill the gaps with assumptions.  
I think it has long been recognized that you never have enough evidence for absolute certainty, but the
severity of the problem has only quite recently become clear. Let me illustrate with some evidence that
has recently come to light through computational efforts to simulate perception.

Almost all of you will have experienced the immediate sense of three dimensional depth that you
obtain by looking at a pair of images in a stereoscope. One of the fascinating lessons learned from
computational attempts to interpret stereo-pairs is that you cannot reconstruct a 3-D representation from
two such images without making quite drastic assumptions about the nature of the 3-D world you are
trying to reconstruct, for there is simply not enough information in the images themselves to enable this to
be done. In spite of this the brain unhesitatingly provides the assumptions that make it possible, while we
are totally unaware of this step. I think this has important implications for many beliefs that we think are
based on rational thought: they often require assumptions that cannot be justified by the evidence
presented, but which our brains none-the-less automatically adopt, while we are quite unaware of it doing
so.

You may say that the assumptions are justified because they do actually apply to the real world. But
surely no card-carrying rationalist would like to admit that his beliefs rest on assumptions he does not
know about, that he inherited these assumptions with his brain, and that he cannot justify them with the
evidence before him.

Not all rationalists make this mistake of overconfidence. I like the story about Niels Bohr and the
horseshoe. He apparently had a cottage in the woods where he retired at weekends, and he invited a


visiting American to see him there. When this visitor arrived he was horrified to find a horseshoe nailed to
the door for good luck, and he expostulated with Bohr “Surely you don’t believe that superstitious
nonsense”. “No”, said Bohr, “but they say it works whether you believe it or not”.

Actually there is, or should have been, a rather interesting change in the skeptics approach over the last
decade or two. I can illustrate this by a witty remark once made by William James, whom many regard as
the wisest of the founding fathers of Psychology. He said, scornfully “Many people think they are thinking
when they are merely rearranging their prejudices”. But he should not have been scornful. Prejudices can
be regarded as subjective estimates of prior probabilities, often ones with extreme values close to 0 or 1.
Surely it is not foolish to reevaluate prior probabilities from time to time, and indeed we should probably
spend more time thinking about this and doing it. The Bayesian revolution means that we have a way of
incorporating prior probabilities into our decision making, and I think this makes a big difference.

Quote


If someone says to me “I once saw a man walk through a closed door without making a sound”, I don’t
now have to call him a liar. I can explain, rationally and I hope inoffensively, that I attach an extremely
low prior probability to that actually having taken place, so before accepting it I must examine alternative
explanations for what he thought he saw.

Skeptics and believers have widely different prior probabilities about many things. At first this seems
no more than a restatement of my starting point, namely that there is a an astonishing divergence of
opinion about the paranormal. However if we freely indulge in the kind of thought William James was so
scornful about, and re-evaluate prior probabilities as the evidence comes in, in true Bayesian fashion, then
perhaps we can take a step in tracking down the source of the divergence of opinion, and by re-evaluating
the prior probabilities we might even decrease them.

The grip of herd instincts and tribal beliefs

NOW I’VE SO FAR mentioned three mistakes that people make when looking at evidence for the
paranormal:


• failure to realize that the validity of predictions can be tested against experience;
• failure to understand the logic of statistical decision making;
• failure to appreciate the role of prior probabilities in this process and to focus attention on them
when appropriate.

I’m now coming to a fourth, which I think is more interesting. It stems from the following fact:
humans can, at least to a limited extent, report the reasons for their actions and beliefs to others. This may
seem obvious and not very important, but I think it is remarkable, and crucial to the way we form our
beliefs. Note to begin with that computers usually can’t do it. They can reason better than us, and guide
complex actions better than us, but they cannot usually explain the basis for their actions. In contrast if
someone asks me why I bought sausages for supper I can tell them what made me decide on sausages
rather than chicken legs, and if I ask the man why he thought he saw someone walk through a closed door,
I expect him to be able to elaborate on his experience, and he expects me to expect that and expects to be
able to satisfy my request. Of course computers can be programmed to meet such requests, and they
actually do so in a limited and often unsatisfactory manner, but it is not an essential feature of human-
computer intercourse, as it is of human-human intercourse.

Our ability to report on the causes of our actions to other people, and our frequent use of this ability,
means that the mechanisms creating our conscious thoughts must be largely preoccupied with the creation
of such explanations, and this is surely likely to interfere with the process of forming accurate and valid
beliefs about the objective world.

I’m afraid this is coming dangerously close to the problem of consciousness, and it’s much too late in
the evening to go into that. But one thing I want you to notice is that this capacity for reporting the causes
of one’s beliefs and actions has a profound effect on our social behavior. Without it, a meeting like this
one would be absurd and could not take place at all. And just try to imagine living in a society where
people could not explain the reasons for their actions and did not expect others to be able to do so. Surely
this capacity is the basis for our whole social structure and an important factor, maybe the main one, for
humans being a very successful biological species and over-running the earth. But what is the relevance of
this to belief or skepticism about paranormal phenomena?

I said that we can report on the functioning of our own brains, and I think this not only seems to be
true, but is actually true -in part. However I think the accuracy and depth of these reports is very much
more limited than it seems to be. Apart from the fact that the mechanisms creating the reports must be


preoccupied with explaining the brain’s actions to other people, many of the causes of our actions and
beliefs are not accessible to our conscious minds, and therefore cannot be communicated to others. And
this is especially true for what might be called tribal beliefs -ones we share with those we grew up with
and whose society we seek. Within the tribe there is no need to communicate them, because everyone has
them already, so it is not surprising from an evolutionary point of view that we are unable to do so.
William James was optimistic in thinking that prejudices could be rearranged, and I was optimistic in
likening prejudices to prior probabilities: but we have to admit that some prejudices are simply
unchangeable, and this may apply to an uncomfortably large proportion of the prior probabilities we use
all the time.

But even this has its cheerful side. It means that one can rationally conclude an argument by saying “I
am sorry, we have reached a point of conflict between your prejudices and mine, and if one or other or
both of these prejudices are unchangeable, as so many are, then we can proceed no further.”

How to reach agreement

LET ME CONCLUDE by suggesting four steps that might decrease the striking divergences of opinion about
paranormal phenomena. The first two, appreciating that predictive methods can be tested against
experience, and mastering the logic of decision making, have already been taken by most of you, though
not by the public at large.

The third is to take a Bayesian view when assessing the truth or otherwise of paranormal phenomena,
and be willing to adjust your prior probabilities in the light of experience -and of course I especially
commend this course of action if your set of prior probabilities differs substantially from my own!

Finally, we probably have to admit that some of these prior probabilities are determined by tribal
beliefs that are virtually impervious to change by evidence. For these I recommend Niels Bohr’s attitude,
for many false beliefs are innocuous; fierce argument should be reserved for the cases where we are sure
that they are not.
Attitude is your acceptance of the natural laws, or your rejection of the natural laws

#2 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 21 December 2015 - 10:56 AM

You can simplify all this by correcting the claims that sceptics "believe" in something specific. You have believers on one side, and people (sceptics ) waiting for proper evidence to be presented on the other side. The sceptics in this article are claimed to have "pathetic faith in the validity of the rationalist approach", which is a ridiculous attempt to make sceptics look bad. There is absolutely nothing pathetic about waiting for reliable evidence before believing in anything. That is actually the best and most reliable way advance knowledge in any field. Also sceptics and scientists do nothing by faith, so that word has no place in a description of their methods. No proper sceptic or scientist has ever claimed to have an "infallible" amount of knowledge, but if they did not come close then there would be none of the wonderful technology we have at our disposal today. And we certainly would not have that technology and knowledge if we had followed the methods of most paranormal researchers.

#3 MichelleGStudy

MichelleGStudy

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,309 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Beaufort, NC
  • Interests:I am in private practice with a primary focus on treatment & management of eye disease. I enjoy astronomy, paranormal Investigating, visiting cemeteries, geocaching, gold panning, metal detecting & things of that nature.

Posted 21 December 2015 - 06:07 PM

View PostSnowlord, on 21 December 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

You can simplify all this by correcting the claims that sceptics "believe" in something specific. You have believers on one side, and people (sceptics ) waiting for proper evidence to be presented on the other side. The sceptics in this article are claimed to have "pathetic faith in the validity of the rationalist approach", which is a ridiculous attempt to make sceptics look bad. There is absolutely nothing pathetic about waiting for reliable evidence before believing in anything. That is actually the best and most reliable way advance knowledge in any field. Also sceptics and scientists do nothing by faith, so that word has no place in a description of their methods. No proper sceptic or scientist has ever claimed to have an "infallible" amount of knowledge, but if they did not come close then there would be none of the wonderful technology we have at our disposal today. And we certainly would not have that technology and knowledge if we had followed the methods of most paranormal researchers.
Snowlord my dear friend, I swear you read my mind & put into words the thoughts I can not. I live in the world of science, but also believe.  There has to be room for both.

#4 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 December 2015 - 01:58 PM

http://esoterx.com/2...istic-universe/

I love this guy.  Conversation and validation.   I'm up for that.   I appreciate the time you took to think about it.    I'm going to have to read it over several times, but that's just me.

#5 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Seance

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 22 December 2015 - 02:07 PM

Hey Menet, haven't seen you around much lately! :)
Posted Image

#6 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 December 2015 - 04:04 AM

HA!   Congrats, Mr. Board Manager. I haven't been around in awhile.   Going through my shizzle.   Actually, I came across this jerk who spoke disparagingly about this board.  WTH?   I've always had a wonderful time here and its members had a lot to do with it.

Be talking to you.

#7 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Seance

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,757 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:24 AM

I had a shizzle once. But lost it ;)      Someone talking smack about this board?  :angry22: :angry22:
Posted Image

#8 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:27 AM

OMG, MacQdor:   This is quite a lot of information and I'm looking at Horace Barlow's papers and took a quick peek:

The Cambridge Neuroscience Community
Interests

"Almost all my research has been in the field of vision. My main aim has been to understand the visual system at the level of single neurons and their interactions, a level that may hold the key to a quantitative understanding of the useful work our brains do for us. This work can be measured by estimating the statistical efficiency with which a task can be performed, and the same measure can be applied both to responses of single neurons, and to behavioural responses of a whole animal or human observer. It seems to be turning out that both single neurons, and intact brains, can perform carefully selected tasks quite close to the statistical limit imposed by a known amount of noise deliberately added to the input by the experimenter. This fact shows that brains are not incurably noisy, and it should allow us to find out how our brains track down the symmetries and suspicious coincidences in our environment, tasks that are required for intelligent cognitive judgements. "

I've briefly gone over one paper.  Hook me up with the talk he gave because frankly I'm interested.

#9 MacQdor

MacQdor

    Residual Haunting

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 906 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 December 2015 - 10:41 AM

It's a lot of information to digest and chew over no doubt. I think it brings out the valid points on both sides and should aide the believer and the skeptic.  Study away and let me know if you have thoughts or questions.

Welcome back
Attitude is your acceptance of the natural laws, or your rejection of the natural laws

#10 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 26 December 2015 - 02:47 AM

Well, here like anywhere else when examining a particular (whatever) I agree with the tribal outlook and the prejudices invoked by same.

I don't think the article was a pathetic attempt to make skeptics look bad rather it was made to point out our humanity, our social tendencies and an honest attempt at removing the blinders we all wear (more or less) due to our beliefs (tribal alignment).

Science is a wonderfilled tool that has proved itself useful but not infallible.

Look at this:  It's being suggested that Classical Statistics has been operating under false Ptenses.   (I have that spelled right, it's my pathetic attempt at humor over something not so funny)  All of it over an argument forty years ago or better between 2 parties who didn't care for what it was meant to do, so they changed it.

It's out there for viewing, under Nature.

I don't find this read so very different from EsoterX.  Both took me to places I had never been before and for that, I thank you.

#11 JohnWhite

JohnWhite

    Banshee

  • GS Member
  • Pip
  • 179 posts

Posted 30 December 2015 - 02:59 PM

View PostMenet, on 26 December 2015 - 02:47 AM, said:

Well, here like anywhere else when examining a particular (whatever) I agree with the tribal outlook and the prejudices invoked by same.

I don't think the article was a pathetic attempt to make skeptics look bad rather it was made to point out our humanity, our social tendencies and an honest attempt at removing the blinders we all wear (more or less) due to our beliefs (tribal alignment).

Science is a wonderfilled tool that has proved itself useful but not infallible.

Look at this:  It's being suggested that Classical Statistics has been operating under false Ptenses.   (I have that spelled right, it's my pathetic attempt at humor over something not so funny)  All of it over an argument forty years ago or better between 2 parties who didn't care for what it was meant to do, so they changed it.

It's out there for viewing, under Nature.

I don't find this read so very different from EsoterX.  Both took me to places I had never been before and for that, I thank you.

I'm afraid I have to disagree and say that I absolutely think the article was an attempt to make sceptics look bad.  And it wasn't a very good one.  The tone of the whole thing shifted markedly as soon as scepticism became the topic of conversation, and a strawman version of them was beaten up.  Nobody claims science is infallible.  Scientific inquiry is always going to be limited by our own capabilities.  That is not a reason to think that the existence of spirits is simply a toss-up, or that both sides are 'wrong'.  In an either/or question one side has to be right by definition, the issue is that we are not certain which is correct in this case (and many other cases).  There is some degree of evidence which suggests ghostly phenomenon might be a thing of some kind, but it is very limited, and evidence is not proof.  That sceptics await better quality evidence before leaning toward belief is not an assumption that science is infallible.

I also have to note that it seems Barlow completely misunderstood the point of the Niels Bohr story.  The conclusion that it is not acceptable to critique false beliefs if they are considered by the author to be innocuous is simply special pleading, and I really don't think it was what Bohr was implying with his flippant acceptance of a trinket's position over his door.

Edited by JohnWhite, 30 December 2015 - 02:59 PM.


#12 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:49 AM

I've been MIP, John.   Other things are on my plate.   I'll be back.

#13 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 15 January 2016 - 01:57 PM

I am having trouble with this editor.   I've got to go look at it works.   Sorry,  John.   I'll be back.

#14 SpukiKitty

SpukiKitty

    Residual Haunting

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Crazy...Wanna Come?

Posted 07 February 2016 - 10:06 PM

No offense but I can't really get what this guy's saying. I have ADHD and it's late as I write this. Can someone jot down a shorter, similar, layman's-terms version of what he's saying? I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Edited by SpukiKitty, 07 February 2016 - 10:07 PM.

Posted Image

#15 Jim@GhostStudy

Jim@GhostStudy

    Forum Owner

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sacramento
  • Interests:Enjoy good people and wholesome activities.

Posted 07 February 2016 - 10:53 PM

Me too, SpukiKitty!  :)
Posted Image
Check out the GhostStudy.com "YouTube Channel!" Click here

#16 GUNTHER-GHOST-HUNTER

GUNTHER-GHOST-HUNTER

    False Positive

  • GS Member
  • 5 posts

Posted 21 February 2016 - 06:38 PM

View PostSnowlord, on 21 December 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

You can simplify all this by correcting the claims that sceptics "believe" in something specific. You have believers on one side, and people (sceptics ) waiting for proper evidence to be presented on the other side. The sceptics in this article are claimed to have "pathetic faith in the validity of the rationalist approach", which is a ridiculous attempt to make sceptics look bad. There is absolutely nothing pathetic about waiting for reliable evidence before believing in anything. That is actually the best and most reliable way advance knowledge in any field. Also sceptics and scientists do nothing by faith, so that word has no place in a description of their methods. No proper sceptic or scientist has ever claimed to have an "infallible" amount of knowledge, but if they did not come close then there would be none of the wonderful technology we have at our disposal today. And we certainly would not have that technology and knowledge if we had followed the methods of most paranormal researchers.

Very well said!

Paranormal investigation and scientific investigation of supposedly paranormal phenomena are two different things... An essential difference that many "believers of the paranormal" have not understood. There is a reason why Parapsychology is considered a pseudo-science... and it's not because "those stupid scientists" don't "believe" in cool, awesome & mysterious paranormal "stuff"...

   { GUNTHER: GHOST HUNTER}

WATCH MY LATEST VIDEOS HERE

Posted Image

GUNTHER GHOST HUNTER @ YOUTUBE


#17 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 18 May 2016 - 02:57 PM

View PostSnowlord, on 21 December 2015 - 10:56 AM, said:

You can simplify all this by correcting the claims that sceptics "believe" in something specific. You have believers on one side, and people (sceptics ) waiting for proper evidence to be presented on the other side. The sceptics in this article are claimed to have "pathetic faith in the validity of the rationalist approach", which is a ridiculous attempt to make sceptics look bad. There is absolutely nothing pathetic about waiting for reliable evidence before believing in anything. That is actually the best and most reliable way advance knowledge in any field. Also sceptics and scientists do nothing by faith, so that word has no place in a description of their methods. No proper sceptic or scientist has ever claimed to have an "infallible" amount of knowledge, but if they did not come close then there would be none of the wonderful technology we have at our disposal today. And we certainly would not have that technology and knowledge if we had followed the methods of most paranormal researchers.

Huh.   Well, where do I begin?   Skeptics make themselves look bad.   No one has to do it for them.   Dogmatic comes to mind.  I wouldn't attach pathetic to it because I do find that word to be insulting.  There is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box.   In fact, some scientists do and that's how they come up with new stuff but not before they've been kicked around by their own peers.  Dogmatic.

Now I'm going to pick on someone:  lol

There is a certain Astrophysicist that is so full of himself that I like to see him knock down a few pegs every time it is done.   Why?  Because he thinks that he knows everything.  lol   But you wouldn't know that if you didn't make a practice of getting out there and seeing what's going on.  And he is a scientist and he is out there in your face a representative of Science.   I'm surprised he still has a job.   I think it's because he rests on the laurels of his predecessor (sp) although he is nothing like him.   Just instructed by him.  Oh well.   Nothing one can do about his personality.

But you can't say that about Science.  No you can't.   But you can about the people who practice it.   They aren't gods.   They are just people.   Full of all the imperfections that plague humanity.  And unfortunately, that does get in the way.

I love talking to you, SnowLord.  Always willing to listen to what you have to say.

Oh yeah, and about that technology.....geeks.  Not scientists but people with foresight.   People who saw the idea, grasped it and made it work for them and others.

Jezz, I hope I haven't lost my other replies cause I'm not going through this again.

darn it!  They are all gone!

#18 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 07 June 2016 - 10:27 AM

View PostMenet, on 18 May 2016 - 02:57 PM, said:

...   Skeptics make themselves look bad.   No one has to do it for them.   Dogmatic comes to mind ...

There is nothing dogmatic about asking for reliable evidence to substantiate a claim. A proper sceptic will not criticize anyone for thinking or looking outside the box either. That can result in many good discoveries. But when someone comes back from being outside the box they better have reliable evidence to back up what they found there or they will be dismissed, as they should be. There are too many in the paranormal and alternative science world doing just that.

You can ask a sceptic to accept possibilities, and consider hypothesis, but I don't think you can criticize someone for not accepting the possibility of an idea that they find to be too exotic for their mind set. You point me to a person who you might think has a very "open" mind and I can come up with an hypothesis for something that will be too much for them to accept. Does that person then stop being open minded?

Yes ... a person making a new, "outside of the box" discovery might be beat up for a while, human nature can not be eliminated even in the scientific world, but if their evidence is good they will eventually win out. That is the best any human civilization can offer.

Edited by Snowlord, 07 June 2016 - 10:28 AM.


#19 Menet

Menet

    Earthbound Spirit

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,255 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 11 June 2016 - 08:21 AM

View PostSnowlord, on 07 June 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:



There is nothing dogmatic about asking for reliable evidence to substantiate a claim. A proper sceptic will not criticize anyone for thinking or looking outside the box either. That can result in many good discoveries. But when someone comes back from being outside the box they better have reliable evidence to back up what they found there or they will be dismissed, as they should be. There are too many in the paranormal and alternative science world doing just that.

You can ask a sceptic to accept possibilities, and consider hypothesis, but I don't think you can criticize someone for not accepting the possibility of an idea that they find to be too exotic for their mind set. You point me to a person who you might think has a very "open" mind and I can come up with an hypothesis for something that will be too much for them to accept. Does that person then stop being open minded?

Yes ... a person making a new, "outside of the box" discovery might be beat up for a while, human nature can not be eliminated even in the scientific world, but if their evidence is good they will eventually win out. That is the best any human civilization can offer.

Hi!!  Were you on vacation?

I had a total of 5 posts here and yours was the last.  Save the best till last.  Yours was the only one that posted.
I'm not going to rewrite any of it.  We can all think for ourselves when we want to.  I'll respect our right to our
own opinions and grow just as vocal as you about what they are.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

#20 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,214 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 23 June 2016 - 04:32 AM

View PostMenet, on 11 June 2016 - 08:21 AM, said:

... Hi!!  Were you on vacation? ...

Yes ... I have been on several vacations so far this summer, and a couple more to come before I am done.  :)

Some are in internet-free zones, and so I am offline at those times.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: paranormal, ghosts, demons parapsychology

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users