Challenging preconceived notions is the core of it for me. I don't think that ghosts exist, but as a skeptic, I know that I can be fooled– in either direction. (And if I'm wrong on that one, I'm still right.) I want my preconceived notions challenged, so that they're either defeated or strengthened. That's the only way I'll figure anything out.
At its best, this field can be a fascinating exploration of physics, philosophy, and human perception. If honest, well-meaning researchers come up with what seems to them to be irrefutable proof of survival after death, well, is it? I find that question important. Along the way, I've learned about infrasound, paredolia, and many other ways that people can honestly and sanely see things that aren't necessarily there. Unfortunately, I've also learned many new uses for string.
I'm not particularly interested in exposing charlatans, despite what this site has had to do. If I'd thought that the Ghost Hunters were faking evidence at the beginning, I probably wouldn't have bothered to watch the show in the first place.
I believe that if this field is to actually produce results, it must withstand skeptical inquiry. Out of respect for its importance, I try to be as skeptical as I can and subject each piece of evidence to the highest scrutiny I can deliver. Maybe, someday, we can build a paranormal science that can knock me on my skeptical posterior and really prove something.
Actually, I think I can end that argument pretty quickly. Name something here on Earth that does not adhere to the laws of physics. Better yet, provide evidence of a ghost not adhering to the laws of physics. Either way, the argument pretty much ends.
Reerob, I understand your point of view. Yet…before we start jumping into other realities or breaking the laws of physics, perhaps we should work within the confines of what we do know and what we can actually prove. Just like what Learjet's post suggested.
An excerpt taken from the home page of this site:
this site was created as a haven for those who would like to have real, intelligent conversations and maybe come away having our preconceived notions challenged, our suspicions confirmed, or learning something entirely new every once in a while.
Thank you so much, Reerob, for quoting the home page to me. After 500 posts, I had completely forgotten what this site is about. I shall try to do better.
Now…apparently, you wish to have a real, intelligent conversation about my preconceived notion of how nothing here on Earth breaks the laws of physics. So…please…enlighten me. I wish to confirm my suspicions and learn something entirely new. If your answer is "a ghost" then please provide evidence of a ghost breaking the laws of physics. If your answer is something other than a ghost, then also please provide evidence of it.
You see, my friend…the argument that a "ghost/spirit/entity/whatever" is either from another reality or outside the laws of physics is deeply flawed. I've heard it many times before. One cannot support a variable with another variable. Another reality or anything outside the laws of physics on this planet, at this time, has not been proven. To argue "Well…they might be one day"….yes, I will concede that there is a possibility. However, at this time, I would rank that possibility about as good as me waking up tomorrow morning and being ten feet tall. Yes, the universe is a wondrous thing. No, mankind does contain infinite knowledge. Yet…for the time being, we are bound to our one and only reality and must adhere to the laws of physics. No way around that really.
Without knowing any facts or properties of "another reality" or anything on this planet that doesn't adhere to the laws of physics…one can hardly base an argument for the existence of ghosts upon it. To make that argument, you may as well just add in "magic" as well. It is not the finest example of critical thought or rational thinking.
Ok…I do hope that this new post meets the strict guidlines issued forth by the website. And since you were so kind to leave me a quote, I shall return the favor:
"We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." – Dr. Carl Sagan
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
I happen to be one of those skeptics who believe in nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.
I often trust my senses the least. They are too easily fooled. Look at matrixing (both audio and visual) Sounds without a known source don't really help much. What was it? Don't know sounded kinda like a growl. Demon. Cat. Stomach. :)
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
I have a question that I often ask myself, and I'd appreciate your input as well:
If the majority of people (including myself) on this forum doubt the existence of nearly all paranormal claims, why waste valuable time, money and resources investigating these phenomenae?
The words "nearly all" jump out at me. Even if I doubt 99.9% of the claims, isn't that 0.1% worth investigating?
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
this site was created as a haven for those who would like to have real, intelligent conversations and maybe come away having our preconceived notions challenged, our suspicions confirmed, or learning something entirely new every once in a while.
Okay….so challenge one of our preconceived notions about the laws of physics by answering Revenant's: "Name something here on Earth that does not adhere to the laws of physics. Better yet, provide evidence of a ghost not adhering to the laws of physics."
If we're going to have our notions of physics challenged, you need to offer something that challenges them. As of yet I don't see anything worth throwing out the laws of physics for and subsequently having to re-evaluate all phenomena in this new light.
I'd welcome it, it would be something new and thought-provoking. Revolutionary, in fact. But nothing comes across yet.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
@ Reerob: "An excerpt taken from the home page of this site:
this site was created as a haven for those who would like to have real, intelligent conversations and maybe come away having our preconceived notions challenged, our suspicions confirmed, or learning something entirely new every once in a while."
Sorry Reerob, I haven't seen anything close to this from you. You say you have done so much research that you should have a doctorate by now. If that is true, then you need to step up to the plate and produce something from all that research – produce evidence. So far you have only offered a hum drum story about a girl you knew during college in the 90's, telling us you are skeptical, that you belong to a paranormal group and yet the only investigation you have seen has been on television? Hardly enough for a doctorate. You have offered nothing and obviously are avoiding even answering Revenant. Instead, you run and hide behind the "skirt" of the home page thinking no one will call you out? Geeze, I hope you don't go running when you go on your big investigation or you could, as you stated, embarass yourself.
I happen to be one of those skeptics who believe in nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.
I often trust my senses the least. They are too easily fooled. Look at matrixing (both audio and visual) Sounds without a known source don't really help much. What was it? Don't know sounded kinda like a growl. Demon. Cat. Stomach.
I really don’t think you can compare . matrixing with the human senses. Matrixing is like filling in the blanks mentally. it’s the human mind seeing something from nothing or believing there is something from nothing. The mind forming its own conclusion
@Paul…matrixing is an example of how your senses (audio and visual) can be fooled and tricked into seeing or hearing something that is not there. One thinks he sees a face where no face exists. One hears a sound that says "get out" (or "boj") where such sound does not exist.
it’s the human mind seeing something from nothing or believing there is something from nothing. The mind forming its own conclusion
Not exactly something I would trust! You can't really separate your senses from the mind that interprets them.
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
@ Reerob: "An excerpt taken from the home page of this site:
this site was created as a haven for those who would like to have real, intelligent conversations and maybe come away having our preconceived notions challenged, our suspicions confirmed, or learning something entirely new every once in a while."
Sorry Reerob, I haven't seen anything close to this from you. You say you have done so much research that you should have a doctorate by now. If that is true, then you need to step up to the plate and produce something from all that research – produce evidence. So far you have only offered a hum drum story about a girl you knew during college in the 90's, telling us you are skeptical, that you belong to a paranormal group and yet the only investigation you have seen has been on television? Hardly enough for a doctorate. You have offered nothing and obviously are avoiding even answering Revenant. Instead, you run and hide behind the "skirt" of the home page thinking no one will call you out? Geeze, I hope you don't go running when you go on your big investigation or you could, as you stated, embarass yourself.
Alicat,
With all due respect, I was under the impression that this website was a forum for those of us who enjoyed discussing the topic of paranormal investigation, and debunking charlatans who try to reap rewards by fraudulant means. When I said "I could have earned my doctorate by now" I was using a literary device known as "exaggeration" to emphasize my point. Have you NO sense of humor?
Television shows about haunting are actually something I am fairly new to. As far as "research", I was referring to the amount of money and time I have spent attending lectures and purchasing books on the subject.
Do I sit at home going over every "Ghost Hunters" episode frame by frame while taking meticulous notes? Absolutly not… as I have stated repeatedly, I am a curious skeptic who will soon be going on investigations with a small, local group. Furthermore, my most recent question was "what are your personal reasons for exploring the paranormal"? Instead of politely answering my question, you seek to belittle my previous posts, and insult me.
I apologize for my many, many faults, and will refrain from posting any additional stories, thoughts or ideas on this website.
With all due respect, I was under the impression that this website was a forum for those of us who enjoyed discussing the topic of paranormal investigation, and debunking charlatans who try to reap rewards by fraudulant means. When I said "I could have earned my doctorate by now" I was using a literary device known as "exaggeration" to emphasize my point. Have you NO sense of humor?
Television shows about haunting are actually something I am fairly new to. As far as "research", I was referring to the amount of money and time I have spent attending lectures and purchasing books on the subject.
Do I sit at home going over every "Ghost Hunters" episode frame by frame while taking meticulous notes? Absolutly not… as I have stated repeatedly, I am a curious skeptic who will soon be going on investigations with a small, local group. Furthermore, my most recent question was "what are your personal reasons for exploring the paranormal"? Instead of politely answering my question, you seek to belittle my previous posts, and insult me.
I apologize for my many, many faults, and will refrain from posting any additional stories, thoughts or ideas on this website.
Regards,
Reerob
Hmmm, I really thought you'd be going with the tried and true "All you skeptics are jerks" response. Instead, the rarely used "I was only trying to do some good" routine. Thank you. It's nice to change it up occasionally.
The forum is many things. It is not limited to only discussion on the paranormal and critically examining paranormal TV shows. One can probably tell by the name of the website, The Skeptical Viewer, that, by and large, we are skeptics. In this instance, we are those that question the validity of concepts or theories that exist without substantiated evidence proven by science. We will argue our points based upon logic and viewpoints supported by science.
Many of us here use this as an opportunity to sharpen our reasoning skills. To critically examine something, any and all possibilities must be looked at. Yet, through reason, we must decide what conclusions the evidence actually supports. What is possible within the parameters of our knowledge? And that…is the key to having rational and intelligent conversations here.
So when one tries to support one unproven theory (ghosts), with another (different reality or breaking the rules of physics here on Earth), that argument must be challenged. And I did. Which in turn, you quoted the home page to me. The obvious insult aside, you chose not to engage in the argument. I posted again challenging your argument. Again, you chose not to engage in the argument but instead to hide behind what you think the website "should be" and feign hurt feelings. And this is why you shall not be missed. You have truly missed the point of this board.
Talking of the paranormal and debunking paranormal shows is simply a vehicle in which to exercise the critical thought process. The topic is interesting and provides us with much to argue about. And that, is another key. The art of the intelligent argument. The point of the argument isn't to defeat ones opponent, but to arrive at a new truth or a mutual understanding based upon logic and scientific evidence. Through skepticism and the ensuing arguments, perhaps a new perspective can be obtained. This is what Logisti (and he can certainly correct me if I am wrong here) was referring to when he wrote that on the home page that you quoted me. It is not a license to spout off whatever pseudoscience is popular at the moment and make it sound like it means anything and not expect it to be challenged.
Case in point…you stated "Because I do believe this: we are arrogant in thinking that the only reality which exists is the one experienced through our LIMITED SENTIENT existence. Period." I like the "Period" part, very dramatic. What does that even mean? What scientific evidence (for the umpteenth time that I've asked) do you have for stating this? Of course this must be challenged. How can it not be?
Yes, this board discusses the paranormal. Yet, that does not imply that we are "kool-aid drinkers" just choking down anything thrown at us. In fact, it is quite the opposite. An unspoken theme to the forum (not located on the home page so sorry that you had to learn this the hard way) is "Say what you will…but you better be able to back it up in an intelligent manner." We challenge each other all the time. For the most part, it doesn't become personal. We don't quote the home page to each other when the going gets tough and our points are being challenged. We battle it out intellectually and may the best argument win. No harm, no foul. Nosfer and I argue every now and then. I have nothing but respect for that guy. He argues intelligently, thoughtfully, rationally, and politely. We never get personal, we never get snarky, and we never quote the homepage to each other.
So please, don't cry me a river about how mean we are and how hurt you are. No one is buying either one of those things. So good luck with your ghost hunting and the rest of your life…
Regards,
Revenant
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
Thanks for posting again. I got chills! With all due respect, I have a great sense of humor thank you and I love that you have learned to use big words in bold like "literary device" and "exaggeration". Should I be impressed? I think not. I was curious how long it would take to, once again, never answer the question and cry about someone hurting your feelings by calling you on your own words and actions. Exaggerated or not, your ruse is just smoke and mirrors. My post was direct and to the point so attack it all you want. You come to this site and expect respect yet the minute someone questions you, you insult and attack them the way you did to Revenant. By the way, Nosfer asked you the same question straight out but you ignored him as well. Why? You say you want to have a discussion and make these "exaggerated" statements yet you can't answer a simple question. What exactly are you afraid of here? What happened to all that good money you have just told us you spent going to lectures and buying books or is that a literary device and exaggeration as well? Are you stumped by the question? Have you asked any of the 21 members and counting of your paranormal group the question? Do they not have an answer to Revenant's question either? They should be able to get answers from the big cheese because they claim "We are proud TAPS Family Members." We'd love to hear the answer. But then I guess we won't hear one because you don't want to share. What a shame.
I see I've come very late to the party, but I just wanted to weigh in for those who are curious what I think. Because we endeavor to fairly evaluate all hypotheses that does not mean all hypotheses are given equal weight unless 100% confirmed or disproven. Because we try to be open to new ideas does not mean we are accepting of any and all new ideas.
In a nutshell, the world is not black and white. To get political for a moment — something I try not to do on this site, but here is a really great example of black and white thinking — recently a young woman was at an event Congressman Barney Frank was speaking at and she stated that Obama's health care proposals were the same as Hitler's eugenics policies and then accused Mr. Frank (an openly gay man and also Jewish) of supporting Nazi policies. As one might imagine, Mr. Frank took some offense at the very notion and asked the woman what planet she spends most of her time on. Fox News covered the event largely as a Democratic congressman being rude to a constituent and refusing to answer a legitimate question.
I certainly don't want to get into a debate about healthcare here (but feel free to check out this article and add to that conversation, if the topic interests you) but rather I'd like to examine that interaction at a very base level, removing all politic-specific details. At its core, this event consisted of a woman who was likely born in the 1970's or 80's talking to a gay Jewish man who was born in 1940 (who's parents lived through WWII and who grew up in the aftermath of that war), and because she disagrees with a policy he supports she decided to take the extreme step of comparing that policy to the Nazis.
First and foremost, that's a weak trick to win an argument. Essentially the person making that argument has made a deliberate decision not to explain why they think their own idea is superior/more correct, but instead to demonize the person/idea they're disagreeing with to make them seem unpopular and/or scary. No matter who is arguing about what, this is a poor way to make your case.
Secondly, in this particular case the demonization of choice is a comparison to the extermination of the Jews (and many other non-"Aryans", including gays) by the Nazis in WWII, and the man on the receiving end of this is a gay Jew. An emotional response of some sort would at the very least be understandable, if not appropriate.
Finally we have Fox News covering the event as if Congressman Frank was somehow a villain, defying the brave heroine who is only seeking truth, justice and the American way. Please. There were no heroes or villains during that exchange. We have two emotional human beings talking with their emotions. One is frightened by an idea, but has no rational way to express that fear so she makes an irrational, emotional argument instead. That triggers an entirely to-be-expected emotional response from the person she's talking to. When you start casting these characters as heroes and villains you lose the ability to evaluate the facts and details accurately.
We (humans) are emotional creatures and that's not going to change, but on this website what needs to be understood is that black & white thinking will be challenged because it is often wrong or incomplete (and therefore at least partly wrong). Emotions happen, but let's recognize when they're happening and try to resist our impulses to pigeonhole people and ideas, and in doing so expand our ability to be more objective.
As I'm finishing writing this I'm not even entirely sure if my example was wholly relevant to the exchanges that took place in this thread, and if so who would be cast in what role, so don't read too much into it. This is just me trying to put a curious "current event" into context as it relates to this site and giving some food for thought. Thanks all, for being so active on these forums and having so many great discussions, bringing so much life and so many ideas to this site. Keep it up
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
