Richard Dawkins Going After Faith Healers

[Gokul43201]

I'm with Ivan here. Lie detectors are themselves highly unreliable. In fact, I believe a National Academy of Sciences commissioned study has indicated that they can no more pick a liar than a psychic.

:)

Zz.

Yes, they are unreliable in several circumstances, but even under those circumstances they are definitely way better at picking a liar, than through a random guess, and the degree of unreliability is known. The NAS study is published in a book called "The Polygraph and Lie Detection". The primary purpose of the study was for security and espionage purposes, and for high risk security threats the study concluded that the polygraph performed poorly. The study also found that in the case of investigating truthfulness of the recounting of a specific event, the 582 polygraph results obtained from police departments had a median accuracy index of 0.89. That's not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it's still a pretty high score, IMO.

See: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=125
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10420&page=126

Anyway, this is a completely different discussion and probably belongs in a separate thread.

 

[Moridin]

Part 2 turned up on google video recently.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=%22Richard+Dawkins+-+Enemies+Of+Reason+-+Part+2+of+2%22

 

[Tony11235]

The 'alternative health methods' in that episode were all too familiar to me. My family has used a lot of them. It's frustrating when pointing out the flaws to them and dealing with their set of totally irrational, not to mention illogical, arguments. Like Richard pointed out, a lot of the fears people have with modern medicine originate from overhyped mis-interpretations from the media.

 

[TestUser12]

Tony, you're right, while he does a good job in the program, I'm fearful that people who saw it and believe in these things will just dismiss what he's saying and carry on as usual.

There was a program on recently about an irish woman who was making money from books about her childhood being corrupted by the catholic church and her father. Her family denied all of the facts that she had, and the program was about them taking a lie detector test using MRI (or maybe something else, but similar) scan to detect which parts of the brain were active while answering yes and no questions about the whole ordeal. (they concluded that the family were telling the truth and that she was lying).

This technique obviously is not routinely used as the cost must be high compared to a standard polygraph. I would assume it would be more accurate though.

Comments?

 

[d_jnaneswar]

Then you have a rather strange, personal definition of "subjective".

But then again, since you consider everything to be subjective in the first place, I suppose that is consistent that you can make up your own definitions. If that is the case, I no longer see any point in any kind of discussion, because we cannot have any kind of objective experiences. You are trying to convince me of your favorite color.

Please continue such line of discussion in the Philosophy forum.

Zz.

sure thing.. i am more of a philosopher anyways. So much for debunking.

DJ

 

[mgb_phys]

This technique obviously is not routinely used as the cost must be high compared to a standard polygraph. I would assume it would be more accurate though.

Positron Emmission Tomography can show which parts of the brain are using most oxygen = doing most work.
It has been used to show if people are inventing stories as opposed to remembering them but isn't much more accurate than experienced 'poker tell' spoting questioners.
A big problem is that if you have rehearsed the stories enough you are 'remembering' inventing them as if you were remembering them happening.
You can do this subconsiously, when you 'enhance' an annecdote in the telling and after a few goes you believe the new version yourself.

There is also a dange of assuming that big expensive machine = scientific accuracy. There was an experiment to show that some people were intrinsically racist, they were given an english name to pronounce and then an unfamilair african name with the same number of syllables - their brain naturally used different regions trying to work out how to pronounce something they had never seen before. This was evidence of their inherent racism!

 

[daveg360]

I believe the fundamental issue at work here is the mindset with which people approach something. There seems to be a large proportion of the population who believe, without question, everything that they are told. The remaining minority are destined to spend their lives banging their heads against a very, very thick, brick wall.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the comment, he asked for evidence for a "non-physical" thing that exist.

So far, since he posted it, no one has taken him on his challenge.

Zz.

What sort of evidence would he find acceptable? The problem that I have with many such "challenges" is that for many claims, I have never been able to identify what evidence would be acceptable. In particular this is true with respect to things like ghost claims.

How does one provide evidence for a non-physical thing? If one is to make a challenge, then one is obligated to define what would be acceptable evidence.

 

[mgb_phys]

How does one provide evidence for a non-physical thing?

Like transubstantiation, the host turns into the body of Jesus H. Christ but the miracle is that it retains all the physical appearance of bread. Any scientific test that confirms that it is bread therefore validates the miracle. Jesuits - you can't beat 'em.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Like transubstantiation, the host turns into the body of Jesus H. Christ but the miracle is that it retains all the physical appearance of bread. Any scientific test that confirms that it is bread therefore validates the miracle. Jesuits - you can't beat 'em.

That is a faith issue and not a question of science. No one claims that the host is physically changed to human flesh. In fact I have probably eaten 3000 hosts, they always tasted like unleavened bread, and no one expected otherwise.

What about "ghosts". That is not a faith issue. What evidence would be acceptable?

 

[seycyrus]

...

What about "ghosts". That is not a faith issue. What evidence would be acceptable?

Am I correct in stating that your opinion is that the onus is on the skeptic to define the nature of this evidence?

If so, I disagree. This allows the claimant an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with data(or lack thereof).

The onus is on the claimant to define what he/she is using as evidence.

Does the claimant say that his EM meter responds to ghosts that he can also "feel"? Create a study in which this is tested.

If there is a correlation great, if not it indicates that his evidence is not supportive.

If after a great number of tests, a pattern of positive correlation is established, al lthe better. If not, the claimant must face the fact that he does not even understand what he is trying to claim.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Am I correct in stating that your opinion is that the onus is on the skeptic to define the nature of this evidence?

If so, I disagree. This allows the claimant an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with data(or lack thereof).

The onus is on the claimant to define what he/she is using as evidence.

Most claim direct observations and experiences, and have no control over any evidence.

Does the claimant say that his EM meter responds to ghosts that he can also "feel"? Create a study in which this is tested.

People claim to do this every day. How many scientists are willing to run out and do field testing? If scientists aren't willing to show up, there is nothing the believers can do about that. The scientific position seems to be: It isn't true and I refuse to look. Nor will I accept any field data or videographic evidence.

In the rare cases where a scientist does go out and do field work in this regard and they do observe anomalies, they are relegated to the crackpot bin. So what we see is that the "scientific position" relies on circular logic. I put that in quotes because I don't think it is the scientific position; I think it is just the popular position of many scientists. To me, the scientific position is that we have never figured out a way to properly test and evaluate such claims.

If there is a correlation great, if not it indicates that his evidence is not supportive.

If after a great number of tests, a pattern of positive correlation is established, al lthe better. If not, the claimant must face the fact that he does not even understand what he is trying to claim.

You are assuming that the evidence is repeatable. What about the claims related to transient effects over which the observer has no control?

I have asked this many times and am still awaiting an answer. What sort of evidence for "ghosts" would be acceptable?

The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab. There is no reason to believe this is true especially when we don't understand a phenomenon. How is one to produce something we don't understand in the first place? No one can produce ball lightning in a lab either but it is considered to be real. Why? The evidence for ball lightining is no better than the evidence for ghosts. I think the answer is that we can at least imagine an explanation for ball lightning, so it is a bias of convenience.

 

[seycyrus]

People claim to do this every day. How many scientists are willing to run out and do field testing?

Are you?

Is every scientist responsible for investigating every single claim that every made by anyone?

If scientists aren't willing to show up, there is nothing the believers can do about that. The scientific position seems to be: ?

I haven't seen any data sets in an attempt to prove correlation. Where's the data? If they make the claim that their EM detectors can detect ghosts, then they *have* to have EM detectors available, right?

It isn't true and I refuse to look. Nor will I accept any field data or videographic evidence. ?

Why should the standard scientific criteria be changed?

By its nature, photography and videography produce artifacts on a routine basis.

You are assuming that the evidence is repeatable.

if its not repeatable, what is to distinguish one's person's "ghost" from another person's "imagination"? Why should the claimant automatically get the benefit of the doubt? it isn't that way in any other aspect of science (or life).

What about the claims that related to transient effects over which the observer has no control?

If the claimant stats that "sometimes my EM reader detetcs ghosts", then I would expect for him to investigate under exactly what conditions does it function as described.

If a correlation between the EM detector and presence of ghosts can't be identified, then I would *expect* him to say. "Em detector does not seem to have the ability to detect ghosts."

I have not seen this happen.

I have asked this many times and am still awaiting an answer. What sort of evidence for "ghosts" would be acceptable.

The same evidence you would accept for the invisible pink unicorn on my wall.

The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab.

Equipment can be taken to the field. Furthemore, no one is talking about requiring ghosts to appear in the university laboratory. Where is this train of thought coming from?

(Dr. Doom got expelled from university for this very offense, dontchaknow.)

There is no reason to believe this is true especially when we don't understand a phenomenon.

How is one to produce something we don't understand in the first place?

Even claimants are not postulating the ability to "create" a ghost (that I know of). Are you proposing athat a ghost would not/could not appear in a laboratory?

No one can produce ball lightning in a lab either but it is considered to be real. Why? The evidence for ball lightining is no better than the evidence for ghosts. I think the answer is that we can at least imagine an explanation for ball lightning, so it is a bias of convenience.

Your example supports my position not yours.

The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.

In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.

To answer your question in a direct manner.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable.

A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

late edits above.

 

[phyzmatix]

Am I correct in stating that your opinion is that the onus is on the skeptic to define the nature of this evidence?

If so, I disagree. This allows the claimant an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with data (or lack thereof).

The onus is on the claimant to define what he/she is using as evidence.

Wouldn't you say that your reasoning closely resembles an argument of "guilty until proven innocent"? (In law, the accused doesn't have to provide evidence of his/her innocence. In fact, it's exactly the other way around).

Furthermore, your argument cuts both ways. If the onus is on the claimant to define the nature of the evidence, this allows the skeptic an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with "proof".

 

[phyzmatix]

seycyrus, your post is littered with strawmen, so I'll limit my response to the less ridiculous attempts at reason.

The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.

Which studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning? That was exactly Ivan's point: It can't be reproduced in a lab, so other than anecdotal evidence (I'm no ball lightning guru so I speak under correction here) there is no hard and fast evidence for the phenomenon and therefore it falls in the same category as "ghosts" (from a proven/disproven point of view).

In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.

Oh hogwash! How do you "analyse ghost sightings"? And on what grounds do you clump this fictional analysis together as hallucinations?

To answer your question in a direct manner.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable.

A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.

This is no answer, you're still side-stepping the question.

Have the cojones to state what would convince you as the skeptic of the validity of my claim if I (for the sake of this argument) had observed/experienced some non-physical phenomena.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Are you?

Is every scientist responsible for investigating every single claim that every made by anyone?

No, however he is no position to say the claims aren't true either. The point of the original claim is that no one presented evidence to support claims of the so-called paranormal, so that implies there is no such thing.

As for me, I'm not the one denouncing the claims made. I'm not the one demanding evidence when even I can't define what would be acceptable.

I haven't seen any data sets in an attempt to prove correlation. Where's the data? If they make the claim that their EM detectors can detect ghosts, then they *have* to have EM detectors available, right?

Call the Ghost Busters. Watch the videos. Not acceptable? Then go out with them. I don't know if the are faking it or not. Also, there is an organization that includes many scientists that has investigated this stuff for over a century.

Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
The Journal of the Society for Psychical Research has been published continuously since 1884, promoting the Society's aim of examining "without prejudice or prepossession and in a scientific spirit those faculties of man, real or supposed, which appear to be inexplicable on any generally recognised hypothesis." The Journal's contents reflect the wide range of our contributors' specialisms and interests and include reports of current laboratory and fieldwork research, as well as theoretical, methodological and historical papers with a bearing on the field of parapsychology. There are also regular book reviews and correspondence sections.

Contributions are welcome from both members and non-members of the Society. All papers submitted to the Journal are strictly peer-reviewed, and any opinions expressed are those of the authors alone. Guidelines for potential authors are published on the inside back page of each JSPR issue, or can be obtained from the SPR Editor.

The Journal is published quarterly and the annual subscription, which includes the four issues and any Proceedings (occasional volumes containing longer papers on particular themes) published, is £40/$80. Information about membership, subscriptions and availability of back copies can be obtained from the SPR Office.

Full text of all the past Journals and Proceedings is available online for SPR members. There is also a themed Abstracts Catalogue, and access to both is free to members on registration via the Online Library. JSPR abstracts since 2000 are also available on this website by clicking on the relevant entry in the list to the right.

http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=41

Not scientific enough? Of course not. What science journal would publish such things? It is circular logic at work again.

Why should the standard scientific criteria be changed?

Where did I say scientific standards should be changed?

By its nature, photography and videography produce artifacts on a routine basis.

I know that. Everyone knows that. So what evidence could be used in its place?

if its not repeatable, what is to distinguish one's person's "ghost" from another person's "imagination"? Why should the claimant automatically get the benefit of the doubt? it isn't that way in any other aspect of science (or life).

That has no bearing on whether a claim is true or not. Transient and unpredicatable phenomena do occur. It is a limitation of science that we haven't figured out what to do about that. It is certainly not the fault of the observer.

Again, you are forgetting that the challenge was to post evidence for unreal things. I am simply asking how one is supposed to do that.

If the claimant stats that "sometimes my EM reader detetcs ghosts", then I would expect for him to investigate under exactly what conditions does it function as described.

They do. Try learning about the subject before jumping to conclusions.

If a correlation between the EM detector and presence of ghosts can't be identified, then I would *expect* him to say. "Em detector does not seem to have the ability to detect ghosts."

I have not seen this happen.

What have you studied wrt this subject? Did you even know that there are serious people who look at this stuff. Obviously not.

The same evidence you would accept for the invisible pink unicorn on my wall.

That is not an answer. You are being a smart *** which only shows that you have no answer.

Equipment can be taken to the field. Furthemore, no one is talking about requiring ghost to appear in the university laboratory. Where is this train of thought coming from?

Please read the thread. Dawkins was asking.

(Dr. Doom got expelled from university for this very offense, dontchaknow.)

I am saying the even if a scientists claims to have good field date, no mainstream journal is going to publish it.

Even claimants are not postulating the ability to "create" a ghost (that I know of). Are you proposing athat a ghost would not/could not appear in a laboratory?

Okay, so field data is not acceptable and no one can get published. What next?

Your example supports my position not yours.

The phenomenon you describe was observed. It was compared to other natural phenomenon and theorized that it was a form of lightning, due to its characteristics and similarity to other aspects of electricity. Hence the term "ball lightning". Scientific studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning. Note, we do not claim that ball lightning is really pixies zipping around. We didn't justthrow darts at a dartboard.

In a similar vein, ghost sightings can be analyzed and found to be similar in nature to other types of sighting, namely hallucinations.

To answer your question in a direct manner.

What sort of evidence would be acceptable.

A: The same sort of evidence you require for every other theory. Evidence, whose existence or nonexistence would prove a concept or theory true or false.

Show me the evidence for ball lighting. Show how this differs from the evidence for ghost reports. You are making a false claim.

And by the way, we have no idea what ball lighting may be. What people have produced in the lab only vaguely resembles the phenomena reported over the centuries.

I am not arguing that science is supposed to accept anecdotal evidence, what I am saying is that challenges from people like Dawkins have no merit because no one has figured out how to test certain types of claims in a way acceptable to science. That is by no means evidence that all such claims are hallucinations or the like. One can default to the safe comfortable position and say, well, since we don't know how to explain such reports, they must not be real, but ultimately that is a statement of faith, not science.

 

[ideasrule]

I am not arguing that science is supposed to accept anecdotal evidence, what I am saying is that challenges from people like Dawkins have no merit because no one has figured out how to test certain types of claims in a way acceptable to science. That is by no means evidence that all such claims are hallucinations or the like. One can default to the safe comfortable position and say, well, since we don't know how to explain such reports, they must not be real, but ultimately that is a statement of faith, not science.

If you're not willing to dismiss any claim, even if unfalsifiable, even if made by unreliable people, and even if it has no basis in theory, observation, or experiment, you can't expect to sort out the rubbish and find the truth. Yes, I agree that it's possible, despite countless experiments suggesting otherwise, that faith healing works or that mind reading is possible. Until someone conclusively demonstrates the validity of either, the proper thing to say is: both are unproven. Since they're unproven, they fall into the same category as Russell's teapot, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or the moon base that I dreamed about the other night.

 

[daniel_i_l]

The study debunking prayer was in the American Heart Journal last year.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

Maybe they were praying to the wrong god?
I don't see how you can really study the "effect of prayer" considering the fact that almost no two religious people would agree on the correct prayer to say. They'd probably even think that it'd make it worse by praying to the wrong god.
So even if one of the gods is real, the positive effect of praying to it would be canceled out by the negative effect of all the people praying to the wrong one.

Though I suppose you could do a different study for every religion. Good Luck.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, however he is no position to say the claims aren't true either. The point of the original claim is that no one presented evidence to support claims of the so-called paranormal, so that implies there is no such thing.

There is a severe misunderstanding here, and it is certainly true for what I have stated and what I definitely stand for.

You have a Phenomenon A.

You also have a statement about Phenomenon A, which is "Phenomenon A is valid".

I would argue that, without valid evidence, the statement which says that "Phenomenon A is valid" is false! It is pure bunk and speculation not based on valid evidence.

You are confusing the above with the argument that "Phenomenon A is bunk".

I really couldn't care less if Phenomenon A is bunk or not. I do care, however, when people use flimsy arguments and anecdotal evidence and THEN claim "Phenomenon A is valid". That is what I'm arguing against, the validity of that statement, not the validity of A. Showing the validity of A is the primary responsibility of those who think that Phenomenon A is valid.

Zz.

 

[phyzmatix]

Showing the validity of A is the primary responsibility of those who think that Phenomenon A is valid.

Which brings us yet again to Ivan's question. If proving the validity of A is the responsibility of the claimant, what proof would be acceptable to the skeptics?

 

[ZapperZ]

Which brings us yet again to Ivan's question. If proving the validity of A is the responsibility of the claimant, what proof would be acceptable to the skeptics?

There is no way to answer this without knowing the nature of Phenomenon A.

Homeopathy claims need to be tested under standard double-blind clinical trials (which I believe has been done with negative results). Psychic claims need to be tested under controlled environment AND with other subject that do not claim to be psychics as the control group. Etc... etc.

But even this still will not be sufficient because these effects can be small. This is not the problem, because in physics, we are familiar with looking for a needle in a haystack. Once we find some evidence of what to look and where to look, we aim in into that phase space and improve our detection/observation. So if there is some evidence of someone being possibly psychic, then more rigorous tests must be done to improve the degree of certainty. Again, this is what is done in science. In other words, it is a continuous process, from discovery, to refinement of the discovery, and then on to the mechanism responsible for the discovery, i.e. the cause and effect. It is not just one thing, it is a process.

Zz.

 

[dx]

The scientist seems to demand that anything real be reproducible in the lab.

No, science doesn't demand that. Astronomy and Cosmology are real sciences, but their objects of study are never produced in a lab.

 

[phyzmatix]

There is no way to answer this without knowing the nature of Phenomenon A.

Homeopathy claims need to be tested under standard double-blind clinical trials (which I believe has been done with negative results). Psychic claims need to be tested under controlled environment AND with other subject that do not claim to be psychics as the control group. Etc... etc.

But even this still will not be sufficient because these effects can be small. This is not the problem, because in physics, we are familiar with looking for a needle in a haystack. Once we find some evidence of what to look and where to look, we aim in into that phase space and improve our detection/observation. So if there is some evidence of someone being possibly psychic, then more rigorous tests must be done to improve the degree of certainty. Again, this is what is done in science. In other words, it is a continuous process, from discovery, to refinement of the discovery, and then on to the mechanism responsible for the discovery, i.e. the cause and effect. It is not just one thing, it is a process.

Thanks for that Zz, you're making a very valid point and it pains me to admit that I haven't considered the problem in this particular light before. And so we learn

 

[seycyrus]

Wouldn't you say that your reasoning closely resembles an argument of "guilty until proven innocent"? (In law, the accused doesn't have to provide evidence of his/her innocence. In fact, it's exactly the other way around).

Guilt and innocence are not being discussed here and are not analagous to the positions of skeptic and claimant.

Surely "innocent until proven guilty" does not imply "all things are true until proven untrue".

Furthermore, your argument cuts both ways. If the onus is on the claimant to define the nature of the evidence, this allows the skeptic an infinite number of loopholes in which to retreat when faced with "proof".

If the skeptic performs the experiment or analyzes the data in aquiesence with the claimaints definition, such a retreat would be immediately revealed as deception on his part.

We are considering both claimain and skeptic to be honest.

 

[Count Iblis]

Is there much point?
You aren't going to convince the practioners; the ones that are crooks arent' going to admit it and the idiots aren't going to understand.
As for the general believers - if they understood statistics, clinical trials and the scientific method they wouldn't believe in this junk anyway.
Is it a worthwhile crusade or just a publicity stunt/ego trip fro the author?

What is needed is nore science education in primary and secondary school. The argument why homeopathy cannot work should be as much common knowledge of why your car can't run on water. In booth cases you cannot expect lay people to know about the preciuse argument based on fundamental physics. But in case of a car that can allegedly run on water, the average lay person knows that this is not plausible based on what he/she does know about how cars work.

With a little more science education, we can get people to reject things like faith healing out of hand too.

 

[seycyrus]

seycyrus, your post is littered with strawmen, so I'll limit my response to the less ridiculous attempts at reason.

Right.

Are you a scientist? Do you know what a falsifiable theory is? Please demonstrate how a theory can be falsifiable if aspects of the theory are not defined.

Which studies can be done to create aspects of ball lightning?

Which aspect would you care to discuss?

That was exactly Ivan's point: It can't be reproduced in a lab, so other than

Aspects of ball lightning can.

anecdotal evidence (I'm no ball lightning guru so I speak under correction here)

At this point, you haven't even demonstrated that you are a "casual reader" of ball lightning.

there is no hard and fast evidence for the phenomenon and therefore it falls in the same category as "ghosts" (from a proven/disproven point of view

I accept your statement that you believe that the experimental evidence for ball lighting is equivalent to the experimental evidence for ghosts. I also extend my sympathies.

Oh hogwash! How do you "analyse ghost sightings

In the same manner that sightings of ball lightning were analyzed.

And on what grounds do you clump this fictional analysis together as hallucinations?

Hallucinations are a verified product of various conditions. I believe I showed the logic behind my reasoning.

This is no answer, you're still side-stepping the question.

I am elucidating the situation and and demonstrating that the exact requirements that we require for scientific inquiry should be used for "paranormal" inquiry.

I'm sorry if it offends you.

Have the cojones to state what would convince you as the skeptic of the validity of my claim if I (for the sake of this argument) had observed/experienced some non-physical phenomena.

Something more than people saying "I saw something. It was a ghost." People see things in the hospital, on desert islands, in the arctic etc., all the time. Hallucinations are a documented reality. Certainly you would not claim that all hallucinations are ghosts. Since you are playing the part of skeptic, what separates your ghost sighting from documented hallucinations?

If you cannot understand the necessity of defining what we are talking about AND the necessity of the claimaint and skeptic agreeing upon terms, then this discussion is ended.

If you would like to be more civil please be my guest. Perhaps you became riled at me do to some other postings.

 

[seycyrus]

No, however he is no position to say the claims aren't true either.

You do not going around believing everything everyone says, simply because you have not performed the experiment yourself, and are not in "a position to do so". It is ridiculous to make such an assertion.

As for me, I'm not the one denouncing the claims made. I'm not the one demanding evidence when even I can't define what would be acceptable

However you are the one who is accepting a theory that does not meet the same criteria that you apply to other investigations.

Call the Ghost Busters. Watch the videos. Not acceptable?

No, me watching a video is not acceptable. Certainly not. I believe the ghost busters carry some sort of monitoring equipment. I'd like a record of their logs, please.

Then go out with them.

If I saw something, what would that prove. I saw kitten in my office yesterday, it turned outto be a brown paper bag. I am not so arrogant to believe that I am not susceptible to hallucinations or misconstructions on what I see/saw.

I don't know if the are faking it or not. Also, there is an organization that includes many scientists that has investigated this stuff for over a century.

I'd like to see their hard data.

I also wonder about their criteria for judging whether somethign is a "legitimate" paranormal activity, v.s. a hoax. We do accept that people make things up right? How do these scientists differentiate between the two?

http://www.spr.ac.uk/expcms/index.php?section=41

Not scientific enough? Of course not. What science journal would publish such things? It is circular logic at work again.

I'll have to look into that.

Where did I say scientific standards should be changed?

By requiring the skeptic to disprove the claimaint, you are applying a different set of standars than used in virtually every scientific field.

I know that. Everyone knows that. So what evidence could be used in its place?

Do claimants claim that they can moitor paranormal activity through other non-visual means?
How about a a correlation between that and visual observances? How about one guy holding the scope where he can't see the other guy ...[/QUOTE]

That has no bearing on whether a claim is true or not.

I never claimed it did. I claim that we should use the same set of criteria across the board.

Again, you are forgetting that the challenge was to post evidence for unreal things. I am simply asking how one is supposed to do that.

Err, I wasn't responding to your challenge. Rather I introduced myself into the thread by asking about on which party lies the onus.

They do. Try learning about the subject before jumping to conclusions.

Where's the data?

What have you studied wrt this subject?

With respect to the standards of scientific theory? Quite alot.

That is not an answer. You are being a smart *** which only shows that you have no answer.

Oh I see. You don't have to answer any questions. Only *I* do?

My answer demonstrated a concept. One that you will not address.

I am saying the even if a scientists claims to have good field date, no mainstream journal is going to publish it.

That sounds very much like a conspiracy theory.

Anyway, show me the field data. Not just a claim of field data. I can guarantee that provided data that showed a strong correlation, people would take notice.

Okay, so field data is not acceptable and no one can get published. What next?.

I didn't say anything that would suport either of those conclusions.

Show me the evidence for ball lighting. Show how this differs from the evidence for ghost reports. You are making a false claim.

You are making a false challenge. You know very well that for any evidence that I produce that supports the conclusion that ball lightning is a form of lighting, you will claim "that's not an example of real ball lightning".

I'll be posting some links in a moment, after I dig though my cabinet. I hope you can read Russian, because some of these papers are translated.

And by the way, we have no idea what ball lighting may be. What people have produced in the lab only vaguely resembles the phenomena reported over the centuries.

We've got a good idea, thank you.

How many centuries have you been talking to people?

 

[phyzmatix]

Unsubstantiated claims, sweeping generalisations, more strawmen etc etc

ZapperZ stepped in and did a very decent job at clarifying the issue at hand so your opinions are no longer of interest to me. Thanks though for playing and have a good day.

 

[seycyrus]

ZapperZ stepped in and did a very decent job at clarifying the issue at hand so your opinions are no longer of interest to me. Thanks though for playing and have a good day.

Too bad you you felt the need to speak strongly on a subject in which you were confused.

Let me know if I can educate you further in the future.