|
|
Post by PILLSBURY on Jul 10, 2006 9:48:08 GMT
I know its slightly off topic but for the record, the man who did the so called research into mobile phones and brain tumours was trying to find a niche in the booming mobile phone accessories market, he had failed several times and needed an angle. If you study his claims there is absolutely no science to back up his claims. However I do agree with the general point that we must look to find ways of scientifically recording the paranormal, I am a beleiver but a scepticall one, as very little so called paranormal phenomona is truly that. It disappoints me that certain tv programmmes dont do more with the scientific gear that is available.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jul 10, 2006 10:59:00 GMT
I know its slightly off topic but for the record, the man who did the so called research into mobile phones and brain tumours was trying to find a niche in the booming mobile phone accessories market, he had failed several times and needed an angle. If you study his claims there is absolutely no science to back up his claims. However I do agree with the general point that we must look to find ways of scientifically recording the paranormal, I am a beleiver but a scepticall one, as very little so called paranormal phenomona is truly that. It disappoints me that certain tv programmmes dont do more with the scientific gear that is available. Thank you someone that talks some sense as opposed to falling back on the "test "debate. That is the point,so many sceptics can only look at the proof thing through a very narrow viewpoint such as the very discipline we have already agree is fallible. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jul 10, 2006 11:16:02 GMT
so you ignore my point then LR, i wonder why
|
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jul 10, 2006 13:01:38 GMT
so you ignore my point then LR, i wonder why Nope i thought i had in my last post when i referred to the " test" . |
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 10, 2006 13:40:10 GMT
Thank you someone that talks some sense as opposed to falling back on the "test "debate. He said, " However I do agree with the general point that we must look to find ways of scientifically recording the paranormal" Scientific tests are the only way that could validate such phenomena. They need to be tested for and the results recorded. You seem very keen to discredit science!! The very thing that could differentiate whether your own claimed ability is real or not. Coincidence? Science has been wrong before; but the fact that it is self-correcting is one of its great strengths. How many times has science been right before?  You can't just cherry-pick an odd example of science correcting itself and then deeming science as a whole to be invalid. OK. If science is not the best way to test the paranormal - which way is? |
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jul 10, 2006 16:55:25 GMT
I don't sodding believe it,where the hell is the post i just made gone  Took me ages to create then when i went to post it took me back to the log in board. Ba****d Arghhh |
|
|
|
Post by PILLSBURY on Jul 10, 2006 20:44:04 GMT
I think that the scientists want to carry out sterile tests,the mediums(for want of a better description) say that the best place to work is out in the field, this is one of the main problems with the arguement. My feeling is that we need to move it forward. Perhaps the scientist can set up experiments in certain locations unknown to the mediums, take them there without giving them prior notice and carry out the relevant experiments, these need to be repeated regularly at various so called haunted locations. Then the medium should be willing to attend for similar testing in the lab. At all time the testing should be based on what scientific evidence can be gathered when phenomena is being experienced. After all the mediums know life after death exists and the scientist wants proof, therefore the premise of the science is not, are mediums fake? but does life continue after death?.
|
|
|
|
Post by quackersgpi on Jul 23, 2006 15:54:34 GMT
Can I just add something here that I think is important. People seem to be talking about "proving the paranormal" as just about proving mediums can talk to spirits and psychics can read peoples minds. What about the other side of the paranormal..the bit where we look at unexplained phenomena and don't put it down to spirit but to other things that maybe we do not understand yet..SOME believers will see things happen that they can't explain and put it down to spirit..Some sceptics look at it and say it can't be spirit because spirit doesn't exist..and hence a stalemate..neither side studies it properly because all they are concerned about is proving the other side wrong..maybe we are missing a important point here. There are bound to be things we do not understand, things that science hasn't proven yet (after all questions cannot be answered until we know the questions)..through science I feel we will find answers to most paranormal activities..it is only when we know those answers and can rule them out that we can even begin to consider "spirit" as a possibility. Doing this will take joint working from both sides..making investigating a competition between believers and skeptics won't get us anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 23, 2006 16:38:15 GMT
Skepticism is not about proving things wrong (!) It's about scrutinising claims and sorting the real from the bogus. If something can stand up to scrutiny, a Skeptic will accept it. That is not a claim that can be substantiated so I don't think a Skeptic would come out with that. A dogmatic non-believer might, but skepticism is not about automatic disbelief and it's certainly not (can't be by definition) dogmatic. Again, skepticism is not about trying to prove the other side wrong. It's about finding out what is real. The 'other side' may well be wrong, but the aim of skepticism is not to prove that (although it does happen that way often). The only way that anything in the field of the paranormal will ever be discovered is through science. Skepticism is at the heart of science and is a necessary component in how science works. Science is about developing new hypotheses, tests, etc. Skepticism is the method of scrutinising those hypotheses for robustness. If they don't stand up to scrutiny then they will have to be dropped and newer, better ones introduced in their place. One of the major barriers to new discovery that believers have is that they do not know what skepticism is nor how to apply it to their thinking. That's one reason why they'll never find the proof they're looking for. Skepticism is not 'the enemy' (at least if you want real answers), and it is the correct approach to take in studying the paranormal properly. |
|
|
|
Post by quackersgpi on Jul 23, 2006 16:42:18 GMT
I coudn't agree more..about the last bit at least..
I might just add I wasn't saying all skeptics say these things what I am saying is some DO ! Some skeptics say mediumship DOES NOT exist and the same of spirit..that I think is where the problem lies..on BOTH sides there are SOME people who will not look either side of their own beliefs..
our forum for example we have someone say :
"You see this is why i KNOW that ghosts dont exist, why mediums are fake and so on"
That is the sort of comment that makes people think this person isn't worth discussing things with as they are not going to be willing to listen to the other side.
|
|
jomarie
Egg
nosy old bugger
Posts: 212
|
Post by jomarie on Jul 23, 2006 16:49:26 GMT
scepticism isnt all hard science... sometimes its just looking at things properly. eg: 3 yr old girl taken to a friends house for a week - refuses to enter 1 room in the house,but happy in the rest... OBVIOUSLY that room is haunted...?  parents thankfully applied scepticism.... turns out shes frightened of balloons and there's one in that room. scepticism is about not jumping to conclusions. |
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 23, 2006 16:53:25 GMT
Well, the title 'Skeptic' is just a self-appointed one (just like psychic or medium) and many who claim to be Skeptics do not do the method justice.
A Skeptic should always be prepared to change a belief if there's evidence to give them reason to do so. That is one of the most difficult things for people to do however. It's all about evidence not belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 23, 2006 16:56:37 GMT
our forum for example we have someone say : "You see this is why i KNOW that ghosts dont exist, why mediums are fake and so on" If a 'Skeptic' claims that they KNOW that ghosts don't exist then they should be able to back that ststement up with some evidence. I bet they couldn't. |
|
|
|
Post by quackersgpi on Jul 23, 2006 16:56:41 GMT
So, would you say then that a person who says in a post the comment that quoted is not really a true SKEPTIC as they claim..as a skeptic would say "I believe there is no spirit" but be open to evidence whereas only a dogmatic non-believer would say "I KNOW there is no such thing as ghosts and mediums are fakes" ?
|
|
|
|
Post by nicky on Jul 23, 2006 17:10:38 GMT
So, would you say then that a person who says in a post the comment that quoted is not really a true SKEPTIC as they claim..as a skeptic would say "I believe there is no spirit" but be open to evidence whereas only a dogmatic non-believer would say "I KNOW there is no such thing as ghosts and mediums are fakes" ? Yes, I would say that someone who claims to know that ghosts don't exist is displaying a dogmatic adherence to a principle. I'm a Skeptic and I don't believe that ghosts exist (although I know that ghost experiences are real) but I'm basing my position on inductive reasoning (a lot of people have looked for ghosts but never found one). I can't say that I know that ghosts don't exist however, as evidence might turn up one day. I can only say that there's no evidence to support the fact that they do exist. These points may seem small, even trivial, but they are quite important in how to approach claims. A Skeptic should not dismiss a possibility if there's a chance, no matter how small, that it could be real. |
|
|
|
Post by quackersgpi on Jul 23, 2006 17:17:55 GMT
Well, I think we may have found the cause of some of the problem then. Some people who suggest they are Skeptics are actually dogmatic non-believers and therefore all skeptics get seen as the same. Some "mediums" who claim to be open minded are actually blind believers and all mediums get tarred with the same brush. Therefore, when you talk to either party you EXPECT them to behave in this manner so there is a negative start to any discussion. When a medium says "I KNOW spirit exists" and a "Skeptic" says "I know it doesn't" there really is no point in carrying on the debate. I am in the middle..I don't know either way and I won't believe any explanation of anything until it is proven. I am not going to name the person who posted that comment as they are on this forum..however, when I read that post I thought he was an arrogant gett and decided that trying to have any decent discussion with him on any aspect of the paranormal was going to be pointless..however, since being on here I have found him to be interesting, to have some good ideas and to also be ready to listen..if I hadn't come on here I would never have found that out.. Maybe that is where those who believe and those who don't need to be careful..it isn't what they believe that causes the problems, it is the way they put it across.. |
|
|
|
Post by PILLSBURY on Jul 23, 2006 17:28:04 GMT
What has pleased me about the exchange of opinion on here is how willing people are to discuss possibilities and that is what most of this debate is,possibilities. I believe in the paranormal but dont just blindly accept every knock ,bang etc is paranormal. I want their to be a proper scientific search for that proof .Ok I start with the premis of proving the paranormal but as long as science is used correctly then that is just as legitimate as someone using science to try and disprove the paranormal. What is vital is that the evidence for or against must be assessed properly and without bias whatever your starting point.
|
|
|
|
Post by quackersgpi on Jul 23, 2006 17:34:25 GMT
I agree..you may have a slightly biased opinion as far as your beliefs go, but, if you are to study the paranormal properly you cannot let your beliefs cloud your judgement. I believe that some groups do not properly investigate because they WANT things to be paranormal..I would rather find logical explantion for everything..at least then I know my results are honest. What is the point in finding any paranormal activity if you know deep down you cannot say 100% it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by trystan on Jul 23, 2006 18:11:23 GMT
When a medium says "I KNOW spirit exists" and a "Skeptic" says "I know it doesn't" there really is no point in carrying on the debate. I am in the middle..I don't know either way and I won't believe any explanation of anything until it is proven. In other words you are a true sceptic. You make a decision based upon the analysis of the best available evidence at the time. I think we need to move away from viewing the term 'sceptic' as shorthand for a naysayer. |
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jul 23, 2006 19:25:34 GMT
Well many of the posts here today are exactly how i feel,particularly in how some sceptics approach the subject. Which means i am agreeing with Johnny.  Off for a lie down. I have already agreed with Jon twice this month,only so much a medium can take.  |
|
You can't just cherry-pick an odd example of science correcting itself and then deeming science as a whole to be invalid.
