- #1
- 8,142
- 1,756
"Study shows psychic mediums really can read your deep secrets"
Allegedly...
http://www.sundayherald.com/40843
Allegedly...
http://www.sundayherald.com/40843
Last edited by a moderator:
Study shows psychic mediums really can read your deep secrets
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Study
In summary: Similarly, if I say that I am 100% certain that I saw Randi cry on national television, again assuming that I am sane,...then that is also a fact.However, if I say that I am 100% certain that I saw a ghost, then that is a claim that I am making that I cannot absolutely prove.
- #2
Zero
Sounds a bit...subjective?
- #3
- 8,142
- 1,756
run Randi run! 
- #4
Zero
Somehow, i don't think Randi has anything to fear...his test would likely be simpler, but less subject to bias, subjectivity, and outright fraud.Ivan Seeking said:run Randi run!
- #5
- 8,142
- 1,756
I meant to go get them.
I grant you, as I have said before in other threads, in spite of my over all opinion [suspicions?] of Randi, he is usually right. He debunks many frauds and he is wise to most forms of trickery. When he starts interpreting specific events, however, I find that he falls far short of being reasonable...in some cases. I find that he is not objective given a situation in which he can't prove his position. I find that he is competely unwilling to consider anyone elses point of view or claims of personal experiences.
I grant you, as I have said before in other threads, in spite of my over all opinion [suspicions?] of Randi, he is usually right. He debunks many frauds and he is wise to most forms of trickery. When he starts interpreting specific events, however, I find that he falls far short of being reasonable...in some cases. I find that he is not objective given a situation in which he can't prove his position. I find that he is competely unwilling to consider anyone elses point of view or claims of personal experiences.
- #6
Zero
The problem with personal experience is that it is incredibly inaccurate. I mean, look at this "study"...according to the link you provided, what actually happened? The "mediums" made guesses about people, and then the people decided if the guesses applied to them or not. To me, that is far and away too subjective. What were the guesses, and how did the people decide if the guesses applied to them or not?Ivan Seeking said:
A more accurate test, and simpler by far, would be to have the "mediums" tell us whether each person is a man or woman. That's it. Check about 1-2000 people, and if they are up around 80-90%, then it would be something worth looking into.
- #7
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
The article doesn't give any examples of the type of information the mediums suposedly picked up on. It is essential to know this to judge if the test has any validity.
I saw a debunking program on TV years ago in which a guy standing in front of an audience made a series of statements like, "You're the type of person who will only put up with so much and then you will say something." and "You're the type of person who is casual enough about money that you don't account for every penny you earn or spend."
The audience had a list of these statements and was told to check off any that applied to them. The result was that everyone in the audience found that 80% of the statements applied to them. Each statement is specifically crafted such that most people will believe it applies to them specifically.
If the mediums in this test were simply making these kind of generic human statements phrased in the form of specific statements, then this test is meaningless.
If however they were making specific statements that couldn't apply to anyone else such as "Your name is Alicia Gonzalez, you are 38 years old, you are divorced but have three children, all girls, your parents are both living but your father is being treated for hypertension. (And the clincher:) in grade school you had a crush on Billy Wilson for two years, a fact you NEVER RELATED TO ANYONE", then there is probably something to the medium's claims.
I saw a debunking program on TV years ago in which a guy standing in front of an audience made a series of statements like, "You're the type of person who will only put up with so much and then you will say something." and "You're the type of person who is casual enough about money that you don't account for every penny you earn or spend."
The audience had a list of these statements and was told to check off any that applied to them. The result was that everyone in the audience found that 80% of the statements applied to them. Each statement is specifically crafted such that most people will believe it applies to them specifically.
If the mediums in this test were simply making these kind of generic human statements phrased in the form of specific statements, then this test is meaningless.
If however they were making specific statements that couldn't apply to anyone else such as "Your name is Alicia Gonzalez, you are 38 years old, you are divorced but have three children, all girls, your parents are both living but your father is being treated for hypertension. (And the clincher:) in grade school you had a crush on Billy Wilson for two years, a fact you NEVER RELATED TO ANYONE", then there is probably something to the medium's claims.
- #8
- 8,142
- 1,756
Zero said:
The problem with some personal experiences...in other cases there can be no doubt: Either event X happened or it didn't. The issue of certainty must be considered. If I say that I am 100% certain that I saw Tsunami levitate, assuming that I am sane, healthy, and sober, unless we have some very unusual extenuating circumstances, either I am lying or not.
In no way am I defending this report. Not only the methods but the source is suspect IMO. Some of these groups do a better job than others, but this "experiment" does sound pretty bad.
- #9
Zero
They let you get away with this because...Ivan Seeking said:
The whole "either you are lying or not" thing is bloody nonsense, chum...you are very likely to have just seen the wrong thing.
- #10
- 8,142
- 1,756
So if I claim something that can't be explained, it must be wrong?
- #11
- 8,142
- 1,756
Zero said:
get away with what?
Really? You are not capable of certainty? Don't you trust your own judgement given absolute certainty?
- #12
Zero
LOL, I don't trust eyewitnesses farther than I can throw them...we see what we want to see, our brains fill in details that don't exist, we match something that we don't see clearly to something we expect to see, etc. Our brains are expert at lying to us...part of consciousness is a quick approximation of reality, oftentimes instead of actual reality. This ability, for good or ill, was wonderful for keeping us from being eaten by tigers 3 million years ago, but lousy for giving eyewitness accounts of things.
- #13
- 8,142
- 1,756
Gee, maybe I should refrain from crossing the street. I may not be able to trust my own eyes!
Obviously humans can be fooled. Your assumption is that they are all being fooled or are mistaken all of the time. Evidence for this? No; because it's not true. People do actually correctly perceive events around them every day; all over the world. You simply wish to choose when and when not to believe them based on your own bias.
Obviously humans can be fooled. Your assumption is that they are all being fooled or are mistaken all of the time. Evidence for this? No; because it's not true. People do actually correctly perceive events around them every day; all over the world. You simply wish to choose when and when not to believe them based on your own bias.
Last edited:
- #14
Zero
*yawn* Here we go again, I must be biased because I am not biased towards subjectivity. Really?Ivan Seeking said:Gee, maybe I should refrain from crossing the street. I may not be able to trust my own eyes!
Obviously humans can be fooled. Your assumption is that they are all being fooled or are mistaken all of the time. Evidence for this? No; because it's not true. People do actually correctly perceive events around them every day; all over the world. You simply wish to choose when and when not to believe them based on your own bias.
When we look at a TV, ddo we see individual dots of light? No, we see the illusion of whole, moving pictures? When we go to the movies, do we see a string of individual photos? No, we see the illusion of an uninterrupted stream of movement. When the police ask eyewitnesses what they saw, do they get identical matching descriptions? No, usually they get conflicting descriptions that they piece together to get a rough idea.
Our brains do a great job of taking incomplete observation and creating the illusion of complete observation, as a kind of mental shorthand. Magicians and con artists take advantage of that fact.
Here, let's take your earlier question another way:
Did you go and look under Tsunami? Check for wires, a hidden platform? Did you bother to ensure that there actually were no "very unusual extenuating circumstances"? Or did you just trust your notoriously untrustworthy vision? That's my problem with this sort of thing, frankly; nobody ever looks behind the curtain, people rarely make sure it isn't a con.
- #15
Tsu
Gold Member
- 420
- 63
Uhhhh, Zero? Ivan said IF he said he was 100% certain...
AFIK, I've never levitated in my life. (Although, I HAVE been known to walk on water...)
AFIK, I've never levitated in my life. (Although, I HAVE been known to walk on water...)
- #16
Zero
Being 100% certain that you have seen something is absolutely not the same as being 100% certain that something has actually happened.Tsunami said:Uhhhh, Zero? Ivan said IF he said he was 100% certain...
AFIK, I've never levitated in my life. (Although, I HAVE been known to walk on water...)
- #17
- 8,142
- 1,756
Oh yes, I didn't mean to say that I actually saw Tsu levitate. I was only using this as a hypothetical example. I have seen her head rotate 360 degrees before but that's another story. :tongue:
All of your arguments only justify the position that not all eyewitness accounts can be trusted. It does not imply that no eyewitness account can be trusted. In some cases, like I said, if there are some unusual or extenuating circumstance, such as if Tsu hired a magician to pull a trick on me, then we have the exception to the rule, but often we have no reason or evidence to suggest that this is the case. Also, if I said that I was certain that I saw her levitate, then obviously this means that I actually looked. This is the reason for citing certainty in the first place.
If someone catches a glimpse of a "shadow person" from the corner of their eye, then big deal, it means nothing. Alternatively, if as has happened someone says that their dead son appeared in the bedroom and had a conversation with them; and that they sat on the bed and spoke for nearly fifteen minutes, then I don't tend to suspect that this was a prank by a third party. Then, if the person making the claim is otherwise sane, healthy and sober, and if their certainty is absolute, then it becomes a simple matter of choice to believe or not. Maybe it was a hallucination and maybe it wasn’t. If there is no direct evidence for or against such a claim then science really has nothing to say about the matter except that we have no way to explain this claim. To say that this didn't happen just because we don't want to believe it is nothing but wild guessing.
All of your arguments only justify the position that not all eyewitness accounts can be trusted. It does not imply that no eyewitness account can be trusted. In some cases, like I said, if there are some unusual or extenuating circumstance, such as if Tsu hired a magician to pull a trick on me, then we have the exception to the rule, but often we have no reason or evidence to suggest that this is the case. Also, if I said that I was certain that I saw her levitate, then obviously this means that I actually looked. This is the reason for citing certainty in the first place.
If someone catches a glimpse of a "shadow person" from the corner of their eye, then big deal, it means nothing. Alternatively, if as has happened someone says that their dead son appeared in the bedroom and had a conversation with them; and that they sat on the bed and spoke for nearly fifteen minutes, then I don't tend to suspect that this was a prank by a third party. Then, if the person making the claim is otherwise sane, healthy and sober, and if their certainty is absolute, then it becomes a simple matter of choice to believe or not. Maybe it was a hallucination and maybe it wasn’t. If there is no direct evidence for or against such a claim then science really has nothing to say about the matter except that we have no way to explain this claim. To say that this didn't happen just because we don't want to believe it is nothing but wild guessing.
- #18
Esperanto
- 73
- 0
Or psychiatrists could give the person seeing his/her dead son zoloft and everything will be okay.
- #19
- 8,142
- 1,756
Esperanto said:
Okay, your theory is that depression and normal grieving causes hallucinations that can be cured with a simple antidepressant. Got it.
Really though, your suggestion that everyone who reports these kinds of experiences is delusional is not supported by the evidence. Many, many people report one or two isolated paranormal experiences, and that's it. Unless we have some evidence that they have mental problems, to assume that anyone who claims to see or experience something that you don't understand must be delusional, is fallacious. We can either pick and choose what we want to believe or we can stick to the evidence.
- #20
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
Couple points:Ivan Seeking said:
First off, I'm concerned that you don't have a clear understanding of the difference between delusional and hallucinated. Delusional people have false ideas, not hallucinations.
Secondly, it is not true that a person has to have a chronic or clinical case of mental problems in order to have an isolated hallucination. The brain is an organ just like any other in the body and an unfortunate confluence of circumstances can lead to an isolated glitch.
Example of an isolated hallucination by a person who was not mentally ill or deluded: A friend of mine had gone for four days without sleep once. He was driving with another guy when he spotted a giant white rabbit sitting in a vacant lot. He stopped the car and told the other guy he'd better drive.
This is a case of someone who was hallucinating, but who was not delusional. He realized the rabbit was an hallucination. Had he thought the giant rabbit was real, he would have been both hallucinated and delusional. If someone reads this and believes there really are giant white rabbits, even though they have never seen one, then they are deluded, but not hallucinating.
Hallucinations exist. Isolated hallucinations exist outside of any chronic mental illness or neurological disorder. These are medical facts. That being the case, the facts in hand support a suggestion that reliable people reporting "paranormal" experiences are mistaken or were hallucinating.
There is nothing outlandish about such a suggestion, given the medical evidence.
- #21
- 8,142
- 1,756
I didn't mean to mix the two terms but as you pointed out, if someone believes they had conversation with a dead person, and they didn't, they would be delusional after hallucinating. Since this would be the case in my example I used the two terms interchangeably.
This is only true within the defined limits of science. Since the possibility of a spiritual reality is not a subject of science, by definition it can't be ruled out by science. Assuming that the claimant is not lying we can only say that a hallucination is the only known scientific explanation.
Of course not. What is outlandish is to declare this as the only possible explanation when this is only true as defined within artificial limits. Science makes no claims of absolute truth. Absolute truth in this regard is a philosophical matter that boils down to a choice in beliefs and nothing else. If you choose to accept what is known today as absolute and total truth, or if a person only believes what he or she can see, touch, or measure, then this is a philosophical and personal choice - the operative word being choice. And then, even within the strict limits of the philosophical domain of science we find many fundamental and unanswered questions.
To believe in a total description of physical reality only as it can be measured, qualified, and confirmed, say for example as a [hopeful] String or Loop Quantum Gravity Theory, since we don't have a complete theory it still requires a leap of faith. Then, even if we had a TOE or a GUT [a complete theory of physics], if a person wants absolute proof before choosing any belief system then they will still never believe anything. There is no such thing as absolute proof. In my experience most people need to believe in something. I would think the history of the religions of the world qualifies as evidence for this as well. Finally, it cannot be the job of science to declare that God is dead. That job belongs to the State Legislators. :tongue:
This is only true within the defined limits of science. Since the possibility of a spiritual reality is not a subject of science, by definition it can't be ruled out by science. Assuming that the claimant is not lying we can only say that a hallucination is the only known scientific explanation.
Of course not. What is outlandish is to declare this as the only possible explanation when this is only true as defined within artificial limits. Science makes no claims of absolute truth. Absolute truth in this regard is a philosophical matter that boils down to a choice in beliefs and nothing else. If you choose to accept what is known today as absolute and total truth, or if a person only believes what he or she can see, touch, or measure, then this is a philosophical and personal choice - the operative word being choice. And then, even within the strict limits of the philosophical domain of science we find many fundamental and unanswered questions.
To believe in a total description of physical reality only as it can be measured, qualified, and confirmed, say for example as a [hopeful] String or Loop Quantum Gravity Theory, since we don't have a complete theory it still requires a leap of faith. Then, even if we had a TOE or a GUT [a complete theory of physics], if a person wants absolute proof before choosing any belief system then they will still never believe anything. There is no such thing as absolute proof. In my experience most people need to believe in something. I would think the history of the religions of the world qualifies as evidence for this as well. Finally, it cannot be the job of science to declare that God is dead. That job belongs to the State Legislators. :tongue:
Last edited:
- #22
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
I was trying to point out that the actual evidence isn't what you implied it to be. Also: your stance in cautioning esperanto to stick to the evidence is clearly a scientific one, here. You speak to him in this post from the position that there are things we reliably know to be true, and that his suggestion that people who have "paranormal" experiences are hallucinating, is opposed by this reliable knowledge, or evidence. If you, yourself, put the game on a scientific playing field, I think it behooves you to take your scientific licks when counter evidence is presented without lame recourse to switching the rules midgame to those of spirituality being outside the domain of science.Ivan Seeking said:
- #23
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
What does the "by definition" refer to? The definition of the word science or spiritual reality? Or something else?Ivan Seeking said:
You previously characterized esperanto's remark as a "suggestion". I'm not sure if you actually believe it was a "declaration" or if you are worked up about something other people have said somewhere else.
I find "outlandish" to be too strong a word. I don't find people who completely close their minds to the possibility of a spiritual reality to be behaving outlandishly in the light of so many John Edwards and Fox Sisters. I wouldn't characterize a completely closed mind as "outlandish", merely ill advised.
- #24
- 8,142
- 1,756
zoobyshoe said:
There are scientific standards, logical standards, legal standards, psychological standards or whatever standard one wishes to choose to define what we mean by evidence. What I meant was that we have no logical reason to assume that all claims of supernatural experiences are false. We can only say whether or not these claims exist within the realm that allows for scientific scrutiny.
- #25
- 8,142
- 1,756
zoobyshoe said:
I mean the defined limits of scientific inquiry.
I'm not worked up about anything and I'm not really sure why you got that impression... I was just shooting down the notion that we can logically ignore all claims of personal experiences that do not conform to known explanations - to science. If someone tells me that they saw something that I can't explain, can I logically and justifiably assume that he is nuts and that I know better? This is a popular and false position assumed by many science minded people. Also, note that the word "outlandish" was first used by you, not me. Again, I said "what is outlandish is to declare this as the only possible explanation when this is only true as defined within artificial limits." Here, in a general sense I was referring to declarations made by the innapropriate application of scienctific principles. To put is simply, science does not and can not have all of the answers to the mysteries of life. It doesn't even pretend to do so. This is a fundamental truth that seems to be lost on many people these days. Since I think the false application of science to beliefs is doing damage to the human spirit and to people's happiness, I think it is important that we clearly define this issue of belief v.s. science.
- #26
- 8,142
- 1,756
Esperanto said:
Esperanto, judging by Zooby's reaction my statements may have sounded harsher than intended.
- #27
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
It seems to me that you had jumped to the conclusion that esperanto was making a broader statement than was evident from his one remark. I don't now if there is a clear line between what he said and the much larger implication you saw.Ivan Seeking said:
Try and see if this means anything to you: no matter how closed minded you can demonstrate them to be, it doesn't end up proving any of your own beliefs are correct.
I said I didn't see anything outlandish. You responded by finding something outlandish.
Which was another thing that gave me the impression of "worked up" because esperanto made one glib remark, and shouldn't be construed as a representative of any larger ideology.
You are painting yourself into a corner here, with this belief vs science. Where do we draw the line in correcting peoples delusions with scientific evidence? It makes fundamentalists very unhappy to talk about evolution. Should we just not bring it up anymore so as to keep the human spirit intact? It makes TedJesusChristGod very unhappy to suggest he is psychotic, so should we worship him so as not to damage the human spirit?
If you look at things carefully and study them, as, say, Galileo did, you discover information that conflicts with people's beliefs.
I do not really believe there is an issue of belief vs science to be dealt with here. The issue has become a psychological one: how does a person best handle it when facts threaten to conflict with what they believe?
Personally, I think it is psychologically bad news to get heavily emotionally invested in belief in anything that can't be proven for the simple reason that you are guarranteed to come into conflict with a lot of people and have absolutely nothing to back your own beliefs.
- #28
- 8,142
- 1,756
zoobyshoe said:
What beliefs? Do you mean my own beliefs about the question of an afterlife? My only point is that we are each free to choose. If someone wishes to believe only that which can be tested and proven, then this is their choice.
I never used the word until you implied that I had. When you chose to use a word to describe my tone that I didn't use, I decided to give an example of something that I felt qualified.
Maybe not. As you said, the line is not so clear here. I simply responded with what I felt was appropriate given the entire context of this thread.
This is a difficult issue, but you also paint yourself into a corner: You again jump to equating spiritualism with being a nut. This is the very issue to which I speak thoughout this thread. Thanks for demonstrating this point. Consider there have been many scientist who had mental problems as well. Does this invalidate all of science? As for the fundamentalist, since I have had this conversation many time, I simply say that all of the physical evidence points to evolution as a fact. To believe otherwise requires a leap of faith. Next, since I don't personally know for a fact that evolution happened, but since I am told and read that this is the case, to believe in evolution is for me also is a leap of faith. I bet that on many levels, even an biologist or an anthropologist must make leaps of faith that go mostly unnoticed.
Thanks goodness we don't have any contradictions in the world of science.
No this is not the issue at all. The issue is that science has limits and does not even pretend to answer all of life's mysteries - when it comes to issues of spirituality, it doesn't even try. On this issue science really has nothing to say. Many people seem to think otherwise.
Then this is the belief in which you are heavily invested. .
- #29
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
By beliefs I am referring to all the things you believe which put you at odds in your mind with the skeptics. What I was trying to point out is that you feel the skeptics, with their closed mindedness, are the problem. In your conflicts with the skeptics their closed mindedness (which I do believe reaches illogical levels of hardness in some cases) is much less a problem than the fact UFO believers don't have a craft and bodies, for example, to back their beliefs. I do, in fact, observe you to be quite worked up about skeptics.Ivan Seeking said:
Correct, and I responded to that example, by saying that "outlandish" was too harsh a term, in my opinion. To the extent I implied you found esperanto's suggestion to be outlandish, I was also objecting that it was too harsh. By saying that I was the first person to use the term, you imply that I have no right to object to it. I did have the right because I was objecting to the implication I saw, correctly or not, of it in your reaction to esperanto, and I was also objecting to the overt use of it in your example.
Incorrect. My question is "Where do we draw the line?"
Don't thank me. I haven't demonstrated this point. I did not mention TJCG in order to equate spiritualism with nuts.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, while objecting to the use of the term "leap of faith" which has adds a religious overtone. I have never been to the city of Rio de Janeiro, and therefore, cannot be certain it exists. I believe it does, though, based on secondary evidence: eyewitness accounts of people who say they've been there, as well as film and video footage. I would characterize myself as 98% positive that I could actually go there, find that it exists and see it with my own eyes and percieve it with my own senses.
I have seen and read a lot of evidence for evolution, but, like you, I don't personally know for a fact it happened. Therefore I leave room open to accommodate what new information might come to light to disprove it.
Unlike you, though, I don't find the limits on my ability to know anything for certain to constitute a justification for belief in spiritualism.
A snide retort that shows you had a bad emotional reaction to my good point about Galileo: carefull observation of a situation frequently turns up information that conflicts with people's beliefs. This happens to me all the time: other people point things out that conflict with what I previously believed. If it turns out they have a case, I have to adjust my beliefs.
As with the example of the fundamentalists and evolution, science seems to have a lot to say about a lot of spiritual beliefs. I'm not sure what particular mysteries you have in mind that science doesn't even pretend to answer, I'm sure there are some, but it isn't accurate to say that science hasn't come into conflict with spirituality. You, yourself, rect scientifically when confronted by what you assess to be fake, like the John Edwards stuff.
No, this is something I, personally, think. It's an opinion based on observation. I'm not married to it. When I see a lot of evidence that people who are heavily emotionally invested in beliefs they cannot prove don't conflict with other people alot, then I'll throw this thought out the window and revise it to "Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't."
- #30
- 8,142
- 1,756
zoobyshoe said:
I have claimed no belief; funny that you would assume otherwise. I do strongly defend the intellectual right of choice. Now hopefully you know me well enough to know that I don't support belief in any silly idea that comes along, in fact I claim very little in this sense, but as I have tried to say time and time again, science does not address issues of God, spirituality, angels, the divinity of the Pope, or the spiritual credibility of a Minster’s license from Rolling Stone magazine, for that matter. This means that it is logically possible that people have genuine experiences that exist outside of known science; or maybe outside of anything that can ever be a part of science. I only object to the often cited or implied but fallacious conclusion that if it can't be addressed by science there is no reality. In fact, physics - the cornerstone of all science - is at its deepest level a philosophy. This means that there are philosophical limits, as well as physical limits to the range of its applicability.
By definition we can't know. IMO, we can only allow for relative certainty, and to recognize our limits where reasonable uncertainty exists. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that no psychiatry book will ever cite a genuine spiritual experience as the potential explanation for such as claimed. By definition, unless something can be measured this must be denied. This is not however an absolute statement of truth. The fact that so many people are annoyed by this point is the evidence that it constantly needs to be made.
We are absolutely talking about leaps of different magnitudes here...I should have included this point myself; but a leap is still a leap. Also, I have reasonable confidence that we did evolve pretty much as is suggested by the evidence and described by mainstream science, however I have much more confidence that Rio is there. As for the fundamentalist, in spite of the 1:107 something odds for each person, somebody always eventually wins the lottery. Where there is faith, there is hope. People need hope. Prove to me that some super-being didn’t make our universe, just one of many that we can never detect perhaps, to appear just as it does just to give the illusion that evolution happened, that the universe is 14 Billion years old, and that the Big Bang actually happened; the concept of omnipotence makes this is entirely possible. Science can never even address this question…unless it happens to be true and we can test for it [which is not my opinion or what I expect].
I have claimed no particular belief. Maybe given the experiences of others, you would. Again, since you don’t allow for a spiritual reality, ten million testimonials mean nothing to you. I don’t see this as logical. This is your filter at work [as mentioned below].
Snide? I say targeted. That's why it bothers you. It addresses again the limits that so many seek to deny.
Absolutely not. Science can say much about claims that can be tested.
See for starters the philosophy forums; next, the great unanswered questions in physics – like what is a measurement for starters. Then we get into questions like “what came before the Big Bang”, or “who or what made that? Does truth exist? Do we have a soul? Is there an afterlife and on and on. Unless there is some way to test for a certain claim or belief, these questions can never be answered by science; ever - by definition. This is why people are intellectually free to choose their beliefs. This does not mean that anyone should avoid using their brain when making a choice in beliefs.
To choose no belief is to choose a belief. This then becomes your filter for the world. After all, what else do beliefs really do? I don’t see how you can be different from anyone else. You are a subjective creature; not a logical machine.
Last edited:
- #31
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
You have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife.Ivan Seeking said:
My stance in this regard is that if it can't be addressed by science, there isn't much of a point in getting exited about it. This has nothing whatever to do or say about it's reality. It could be there are fairies. If there are, science hasn't got a clue how to find and study them. My concern is that people not start speculating about fairies from the hoaxed photographs taken by those little girls, or from reports given by someone who has been drinking absinthe.
This isn't a very good example of what you mean, because psychiatry deals with pathological experiences. Someone having a genuine spiritual experience wouldn't be likely to present as nuts and end up with at shrinks office.
I think the many threads you and I have participated in tediously speculating about sketchy newpaper reports of strange events, with enormous gaps in information, ought to have explained why most people have no patience for trying to grasp that which cannot be measured. People, some people, "deny" (ignore) this stuff because there's just nothing to get a handle on. We nearly always end up dropping a subject because we've exhausted the amount of speculation and discussion we could milk out of the sketchy info.
It is not correct to view me as not allowing for a spiritual reality. It is quite true that I stumbled across the very interesting information that many experiences that people have taken to be "spiritual" ones are, in fact, simple and complex partial seizure symptoms.
Actually, the point, which is that there is much disagreement among scientists, and therefore science has not proven to be a perfect tool to describe the world, is perfectly valid. The tone is what bothered me.
I would describe creationism as a spiritual belief. Why is it not a spiritual belief in your assessment? I also think the Catholic Churchs' former notion that the Earth was the center of the universe counts as a spiritual belief. Hassidic Jews believe the world is only 5000 plus years old, and that carbon dating is inaccurate. Is this not a spiritual belief?
What is the sound of one hand clapping?
I understand the point you're making here, but I don't see how it constitutes a response to what you quoted me saying.
All I was saying is "Take it easy".
- #32
- 8,142
- 1,756
I have never stated a belief in any specific or comprehensive explanation of the UFO phenomenon. I have said many times that I don't know what to think except that the explanation is very complicated. If I knew what to think I wouldn't be so motivated to push this issue - especially not here. As for matters of spirituality, I have very few answers. As I admitted in another thread, Tsu and I did experience something unusual at one location that many people would interpret as a ghostly encounter, but even on this point I have no explanation for what happened. Note that I never said that I thought it was a spirit. I am quite sure that the room wasn’t rigged and that Tsu and I weren’t both having temporal lobe seizures, but I have never tried to argue this as proof of anything.
That’s great. It is one philosophy.
How many people have you met that believe in fairies?
How would you know? The science of spirituality, again?
The way that I see it, here we have a forum to present, debunk, and /or discuss popular claims, interesting events, or unusual claims of phenomena. In some cases I see the value strictly in the debunking. Other times I see something as interesting, entertaining, or just unusual, but on rare occasion we do find a diamond in the rough. I’m not sure what else you think I expect….I think the evidence shows that in fact most people have beliefs that they can’t defend in any scientific sense.
You said:
I guess I found this a little insulting. I am pretty sure that I learned about this about 40 years ago. It goes right along with your choice of fairies as an example. It also implies that the same is not true of science; otherwise there would be no reason for making the point. If we are going to cite the imperfection and limits of humans and their beliefs by using science, then it is only fair to recognize the imperfections and limits of science at the same time. Neither are perfect so one really can’t be used as an absolute hammer on the other.
Yes it is a belief, and like all beliefs it can be taken on faith; meaning accepted without proof. If we don’t reqwuire proof then science doesn’t apply and a person can simply choose to have faith. On the other hand if I make scientific “claim” that the universe was created and that there was no big bang, and I claim this as a fact not taken on faith, then I am liable to produce evidence to support my claim.
So why bother?
Last edited:
- #33
Andre
- 4,311
- 74
Just for your information,
should report to James Randi, to collect that million bux. it's waiting for years now, to happen.
- #34
Jeebus
- 255
- 0
Andre said:
I remember reading someone tried and they failed, Andre? But, I believe that was before the money issue was spoken. I think the topic was about aura's... can't remember.
- #35
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
Allow me to focus on this one thing before addressing anything else.Ivan Seeking said:
My response to this was:"You have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife."
Your response to this was: "I have never stated a belief in any specific or comprehensive explanation of the UFO phenomenon."
Are you denying that you have continuously demonstrated implied, albeit nebulously formulated, beliefs in many aspects of the UFO phenomenon, as well as matters of the afterlife?
Note, to be quite specific, quite clear, that I am not asking about any statements of belief you may or may not have made. I am asking about unstated beliefs which are apparent from several aspects of your posts, one of which is your impatience with skeptics. (What was the name of that thread you started on two different forums about the skeptics being motivated by fear?)
Similar threads
-
Computing and Technology
-
Special and General Relativity