Hey, I never said rationality is the end-all be-all. It's just a useful invention that has helped us make amazing progress. I think it's wonderful because it's *useful*. If something better comes along, I'm all for it. Perhaps I'm more of a pragmatist than a rational?
Love and other non-measurable feelings are useful. I feel hungry - it's not really a testable feeling, but it is useful - it keeps me alive. Love, though annoying at times, helps us procreate. What really is love, anyway? It's just a combination of "mental states" that we put a label on (you can define it in a testable way, or in a fuzzy non-testable way). In any case, we at least have the beginnings of a testable theory when it comes to such things (they happen in the brain rather than in the physical heart, etc.)
So far, real crimes are not solved by paranormal powers. To this day, paranormal powers will not help you win the lottery. You still cannot have a coherent remote conversation with someone via supernatural powers. It's not especially useful. There is no testable theory of how they are supposed to work.
LT, I've been saying all along that the benefits from such "fringe" research do eventually flow to normal science - but that is no vindication that there really are supernatural powers! Just because alchemy lead to chemistry doesn't mean it's still possible to manufacture gold out of mercury! Just because scientists have learned much about the brain due to parapsychological studies doesn't mean that Remote Viewing works.
And I don't think you do understand the analogy that I countered with. Scientists are looking for the base fundamentals - not the gimmicks. They are looking for the existence of the supernatural fabric - not bent spoons. They are not looking for some specific talent - they are looking for a theoretical foundation. That's why what they are looking for is more akin to the paint and canvas Monet uses than the actual art he creates.
Blanko, many of the claims you have presented frankly are not extraordinary to me. Orbs are often caught by digital cameras - they are usually out of focus dust or bugs. It happens with my digital camera too in my not-so-haunted condo. Figures at the foot of the bed can be explained by night terrors - a phenomenon that I experience as well. I honestly don't have enough information to say one way or another about the other things. This is something that LT seems to forget. He often accuses me of calling people liars or mentally deranged. All I've ever said is I don't have enough information to automatically jump to the paranormal explanation. It's the same with a murder crime scene. You can't make strong statements with second and third-hand information.
MyAuntFanny, some of your statements just don't make any sense to me. Especially this paragraph:
>>If I am talking about a dream I had about a golden scarab, and then a rare golden scarab flies at the window repeatedly, probabality theory could not begin to cope with that. The skeptic can then say it was a coincidence, which is tautological, and as meaningless as saying it was god who sent it. Or they could say the person was lying, which is of course an equally untestable statement, since they weren't there. It's the skeptics who can't say "I don't know why or how that happened" because they can't bear not to have an explanation.
Coincidence is not tautological - it is just a fact with no further explanation. Things happened at a time some humans find curious. That's a coincidence. Probability shows that coincidences are inevitable. I've never heard any skeptic accuse anyone of lying, though it is a possibility that cannot easily be discounted. There are other possibilities, such as misperception, hallucination, created memory... these are all things that have been shown to truly exist by psychological science. Skeptics often say they don't know why or how things happen... your statement is ridiculous. Instead it is you who insist the cause must be supernatural. When there is not enough information, the most honest answer is "I don't know".
I've read up on the PEAR research. I beleive you are referring to the experiments where people can seem to influence a random number generation over billions of iterations. This is interesting work to me, and the initial results are promising, but I'm not overly optimistic. We've seen the same thing with Ganzfeld expiriments, and statistical blips such as these are always due to procedural errors and errors in meta-analysis. If there is no problem with the procedures and another lab can replicate the results, then I think that would be a great starting point, though it is a quite modest phenomenon.
Bradley, I wouldn't mind reading some books that you suggest; in fact I'd probably very much enjoy them.
Sorry, there were just too many replies for me to address adequately. I'm starting a new job and I haven't had much time for this, so my responses are probably below par. :)
rem
Into the mystic (an experience).
by El blanko 207 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
rem
-
El blanko
Sleepy:
I am sure if an orb popped into your house and said hello, bounced off your head and cooked your lunch for you, there would be room for doubt about it's existence still
When you say in context with something, what do you actually mean? Are you refering to 3D spatial imaging techniques? If so, you will simply have to take my word for it and my friends word for it, show a little faith maybe, or do you think I am a liar and by extension my friend? James is an average bloke and only has limited means to show the world his experiences and makes no claims as to their origin.
You have problems believing in a spirit world judging by your response so far, that is my assumption anyway.
What is you real problem here, as I detect anger?
-
El blanko
they are usually out of focus dust or bugs
10 minutes research on the internet will unearth that explanation and we actively discounted many images to try and eliminate that possibility within the skeptics mind.
Plus, how do you account for clusters of orbs moving around his house, whilst he was watching them away from the camera lens?
Hehe - must try harder Mr Scientist
-
El blanko
You can't make strong statements with second and third-hand information.
If you ever pop over to the UK, I am sure my friend will invite you around to his house for an evening, as he welcomes an open-ended discussion and is not a religious man in the traditional sense of the word.
You may find it enlightening.
I haven't made a strong statement either (well I don't think I have)
-
logansrun
rem,
It's interesting that you call yourself a pragmatist. What could be more pragmatic than taking the "leap of faith" into a spiritual world ala William James?
I would be very interested to get a definition of love "in a testatble way" (!)
B.
-
sleepy
El blanko "or do you think I am a liar and by extension my friend? "
Blanko there are other options.You could be mistaken or deluded or even right .But if you are right why would you expect someone just to belieive you?
If I believed anything peopele told me that would make me stupid.If I only believe things that I believe are proven to be true or have substantial evidence is that not wiser?
The picture need to be in context with an recognisable object to ascertain whether they are just artifacts or something different. -
myauntfanny
REM
Coincidence is not tautological - it is just a fact with no further explanation. Things happened at a time some humans find curious. That's a coincidence.
Coincidence is not a "fact". It is a word, a word that is another way of saying that things happened at a time humans find curious. OE defines it as "a notable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection". That says nothing new about what happened, just that it happened. Tautology: "repeating what has been said" (OE also). That is why I said that calling unexplainable events a coincidence is tautological, and adds no meaning to the discussion.
Probability shows that coincidences are inevitable.
Probability "shows" nothing. It is a way of explaining things that have already happened. It is not even a way of predicting what will happen. It is merely a way of guessing, probably hardwired into the brain by evolution. It is just an idea, a human construct.
I've never heard any skeptic accuse anyone of lying, though it is a possibility that cannot easily be discounted.
I'm very surprised, because I've heard lots and lots of them do it.
There are other possibilities, such as misperception, hallucination, created memory... these are all things that have been shown to truly exist by psychological science.
I don't see how ANY of those things could be "proved" to exist. The evidence can only ever be anecdotal. A CAT scan might prove activity in a certain part of the brain at the time a person says they are experiencing something, but that is only a correlation, not a proof. And even if they were proved to exist, it would not logically mean that other causes can't also exist.
Skeptics often say they don't know why or how things happen... your statement is ridiculous. Instead it is you who insist the cause must be supernatural. When there is not enough information, the most honest answer is "I don't know".
I never insisted that the cause must be supernatural, because for one thing "supernatural" is just another word that means we don't know what caused it. I have no idea what causes these experiences, but that doesn't mean they don't happen or aren't worth thinking about.
It is possible to find some middle ground between agreeing with people who were abducted by aliens and given anal probes, and dismissing all unusual experiences.
Edited to add REM's name
-
rem
MyAuntFanny,
My point was that using the word "coincidence" does not imply and explanation. If you are not trying to explain something, then it's not a tautology. The reason coincidences happen can be explained by probability. There are trillions of events that happen to billions of people each day. If "coincidences" didn't happen, then there would be something seriously wrong! It's improbable that they *wouldn't* happen.
As far as accusations of lying are concerned, I was specifically talking about skeptics on this board. I certainly haven't noticed those accusations. Of course, I can't speak for all skeptics and pseudoskeptics in the world.
You have an interesting concept of "proof". There really is no "proof" in science - only probabilities. In these cases it can be shown that certain causes are much, much more probable that others. If hallucination is known to exist in controlled studies, but ghosts are not - then hallucination is a far more probable explanation for some phenomenon. You cannot treat both explanations as being on equal footing. This is no "proof" - hell, ghosts *could* exist, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it - not unless there was some good evidence for ghosts.
>> I have no idea what causes these experiences, but that doesn't mean they don't happen or aren't worth thinking about.
Exactly - skeptics don't say anything different.
>>It is possible to find some middle ground between agreeing with people who were abducted by aliens and given anal probes, and dismissing all unusual experiences.
Yes, the rule of thumb that works well is, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
rem -
rem
Bradley,
>>It's interesting that you call yourself a pragmatist. What could be more pragmatic than taking the "leap of faith" into a spiritual world ala William James?
Perhaps William James hijacked a perfectly good philosophy from Charles Sanders Peirce and turned it into an anti-intellectual, irrational exercise? I'm speaking of pragmatism in the sense of what works. So far, I have not found faith to be a useful tool in my bag of truth-finding tricks. :)
>>I would be very interested to get a definition of love "in a testatble way" (!)
It can be defined as different electro-chemical states in the brain... as opposed to a warm sensation in the chest.
rem -
SixofNine
Let's not be idiots. People on this board do lie. Virtually all people will lie. The fact that someone was once a Jehovah's Witness, does not in any way make them trustworthy. It *could* mean that they are prone to lie to themselves or that they refuse to have honest internal debates.
The people I love most in my life have just about all lied to me at at least some point.... I'm certainly not going to start feeling guilty for keeping an open mind to the fact that any stranger on an internet discussion board could be lying to me. And experience with these liars has taught me not to even try and second guess why someone would fabricate. The internet is a tailor made playground for dishonest people (and relatively honest people who want to try out the "dishonesty" wings, for that matter), and it IS going to attract those people.