Paranormal

[Kate]

Remote Viewing - Joe McMoneagle interview

Believer of Skepticism and Skeptic of Believers ?
or ...
Skeptic of Skepticism ?

Which ones do you think are real ?
Which ones do you think are due to over-active imaginations ?

... because you know you want to voice your opinion :)

[The Overlord]

Believer of Skepticism

There is not such thing, it’s like an contradiction of terms. You can do the research etc., but ultimately skepticism doesn’t take a degree in anything, all it takes is for you to say ‘I don’t believe that, even if the evidence is compelling’. Despite what you see with some media programming, no one can be a ‘professional Skeptic’.

Skeptic of Believers ?

Skepticism of believers is generally aimed at the realm of the paranormal, and again I feel it’s only so useful. If someone believes they saw or encountered something, say a shadow person or ghost.

The skeptic can say you didn’t actually see an apparition, but they can often no more disprove what you saw than you can prove you saw it, if it was a personal experience.

Up until last year the place I worked had fairly frequent allegedly paranormal events, I heard about them here and there over a five year span. Some claimed to have seen actual shadow apparitions, where others working in this store overnight heard voices from people who were not in there, and this is after-hours when a handful of people were on the clock and could all be accounted for. There were also strange electrical or ‘hot smelling’ events that would pop in the store like you’d expect from bad wiring, but it was always very localized and never got pulled through large areas by the air system. On one occasion a smoky ‘hotspot’ appeared in the isle I was in and lingered at one end for a short time, before migrating some 30 feet up to the other end and eventually fading.

I still have no suitable explanation for that. I always took the middle ground with it, not ruling out something genuinely paranormal, but also hoping to get more evidence of a corporeal cause and explanation.

Skeptic of Skepticism ?

On one hand it seems to be yet another contradiction; ‘I don’t believe that you don’t believe’, but there’s more than that. Generally, I disdain the true skeptical mind, generally I dislike the personalities that tend to have them. Plainly put, they tend to be very practical individuals but to a degree where they are smug and offensive to be around.

What I perceive of those I met is a soft and fragile psyche armored under a hard exterior; these people take extreme comfort in believing they how the world around them operates. Among us, they are some of the least flexible to change, they are often ready with an explanation in hand if something pops up that’s slightly off the norm. They’re often the first to sneer at something unexplained, but they never really offer a compelling argument for saying something akin to that’s bullshit.

That’s the kind of skepticism to be skeptical of.

[Kate]

I do agree with your statement of those quick to judge anything paranormal an imature or uneducated reach for the fantastical when they should have faith in existing science providing "rational explanations".

To me science is a like faith in a method, the scientific method, regardless of technology there may be some things that the method itself will stay elusive to.

I think for many things the rational explanation IS "its paranormal"

Paranormal doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation, it means its para-normal
phenomena (experience beyond what is typical phenomena noticed in this world). What I think is more "unbelievable" is that ALL ghost experiences or ALL ufo experiences
are wrong / or the product of sensory delusional or memory failing.

Also being on drugs does not mean that the experience is a product of the drug alone, to some, some drugs may not be causing the experience they may be removing a shroud of experiences prevalent around us.

People only see what they can beleive. There was this famous case of Captain cook dropping ankor a mile off shore by a coast on an island populated with natives that have not seen a large ship before. They could see the rowboats the English used to approach their shore - but couldn't see the ship (only a weird hase around where the ship was - their shaman at the time stared for days around where the ship was thinking the water patterns about the area seemed surreal ... none really paid him attention).

Only when they were invited on the row boat and moved so close to the ship as it took over 20 percent of their view did their mind switch and just showed them what it saw without filtering it into the context of their own understanding.

It makes you wonder - how much is in front of our faces which our own mind doesn't have models for so just screens out you even seeing it in the first place ?

I think that is why on many occasions "Ghosts" can be seen in photos but not easily seen. My theory is your mind "sees" them, but screens it out from your consciousness for its own reasons. Sort of like a "internal censorship" for your own sanity's sake.

[Jude]

Paranormal doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation, it means its para-normal
phenomena (experience beyond what is typical phenomena noticed in this world). What I think is more "unbelievable" is that ALL ghost experiences or ALL ufo experiences
are wrong / or the product of sensory delusional or memory failing.

I suggest you learn more about the power of the mind then revisit this notion.  The human mind has an incredible ability to convince people things're true that they believe to be or have the smallest of hunches based on many sets of principles.

From Gestalt Psychology to the Placebo Effect, human beings are capable of twisting the truth into a gigantic pretzel on many issues.  The only thing that can really be taken as reliable, concrete evidence of any phenomenon is to come up with unbiased, impartial ways to defining said phenomenon and using methods and means to test it (i.e. the scientific method).  Why is that?  Because the human mind is not reliable enough for sensory experience or memory alone.

Also being on drugs does not mean that the experience is a product of the drug alone, to some, some drugs may not be causing the experience they may be removing a shroud of experiences prevalent around us.

But that's not how drugs work.  They poison your brain and mess up the mental processes.  It has nothing to do with anything supernatural or eye-opening like many people believe.  We know how they work.

People only see what they can beleive. There was this famous case of Captain cook dropping ankor a mile off shore by a coast on an island populated with natives that have not seen a large ship before. They could see the rowboats the English used to approach their shore - but couldn't see the ship (only a weird hase around where the ship was - their shaman at the time stared for days around where the ship was thinking the water patterns about the area seemed surreal ... none really paid him attention).

I've heard that story, but one story doesn't prove anything.  A concept or conclusion only matters if it's replicable, because that's the only way it can be explained as a reliable phenomenon.  I can give many instances where human beings have come into contact with amazing surprises and still saw them.  You can't use one anecdote and exaggerate that to all of human experience.

Only when they were invited on the row boat and moved so close to the ship as it took over 20 percent of their view did their mind switch and just showed them what it saw without filtering it into the context of their own understanding.

There are so many explanations for this and potential problems with such a scenario to be used as a basis for a psychological principle.

It makes you wonder - how much is in front of our faces which our own mind doesn't have models for so just screens out you even seeing it in the first place ?

It's true that the human mind does a lot of touch-up, but it's more like airbrushing than it is photoshopping, to use an analogy.  Again, check out Gestalt Psychology, it deals with twisting of perception to fit expectation.

I think that is why on many occasions "Ghosts" can be seen in photos but not easily seen. My theory is your mind "sees" them, but screens it out from your consciousness for its own reasons. Sort of like a "internal censorship" for your own sanity's sake.

But they can't be seen in photos.  There's never been any airtight empirical evidence of the supernatural.  Whenever anyone has the slightest bit of evidence it's always vague and unreproducible.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

I think more than anything that's a good explanation of why the paranormal probably doesn't exist.  It can never be ruled out, but that's compelling evidence when you consider that challenge has been going on in one form or another since 1968 and still no one has been awarded a cent.

[The Overlord]

This all goes far beyond the scope of actual professional and practiced science. All manner of layman derive on some level of skepticism against the paranormal without conducting any actual research or observation. They’re simply being skeptical at a given topic because for one reason or another it defies and challenges their notion of what is right with universe.




A word or two regarding ghosts and apparitions: Most every bit of material on the topic I’ve seen, heard, and read suggests that they work on an energy level. The famed cold spots that accompany many alleged haunting are said to be caused because a presence, human or otherwise, must utilize local energy to manifest in some way and interact with the corporeal. Even the ambient heat in the air is thermal energy, consuming it makes sense it would produce a cold spot.

So many times something appears on film, audio (often in the form of EVP’s), or video. If we’re actually talking of something that’s manifested energy, all these electronic gizmos we use in this day and age record with and are susceptible to electromagnetic energy.

In that regard it may indeed be more than internal censorship when encountering something that defies rationality (at least your definition of it).

Our eyes, ultimately, are imperfect gelatinous orbs in our skulls that work only a very limited slice of the EM spectrum. The impulses sent along our optic nerves are processed by an imperfect brain with limited capacity of its own, however complex it may be. Cutting edge physics that’s trying to crack the nature of the quantum and the reality of reality realizes that our limited and processed senses automatically introduce all manner of bias in our observations.

It makes one wonder what it actually is to ‘truly see’ the universe around us. Certainly our eyes cannot perceive everything that occurs around us…the jury is still out on the stuff deemed paranormal, IMHO.

[Serephino]

It can't be proven scientifically because hard science and paranormal activity are like apples and oranges.  They're completely different animals.  I believe in ghosts because of the many experiences I've had, but I don't believe there will ever be any scientific way to prove they exist.  Whether or not someone believes will just have to be let up to each individual.

There is a show in Scyfi called Ghost Hunters.  They use scientific equipment like electro-magnetic detectors, cameras, thermal cameras, and digital recorders.  They've caught some very interesting stuff that could not be explained with any rational explanation.  That is what paranormal activity is, and always will be; things that cannot be explained by science.  Scientific equipment can catch things like the shape of a man walking across a hall on a thermal camera when the people operating the camera saw nothing, but there will never be a way to analyze it and prove what it was.   

[The Overlord]

It can't be proven scientifically because hard science and paranormal activity are like apples and oranges.  They're completely different animals.  I believe in ghosts because of the many experiences I've had, but I don't believe there will ever be any scientific way to prove they exist.  Whether or not someone believes will just have to be let up to each individual.

I disagree. If the things classified as paranormal 1) actually exist and 2) are either part of our universe or a parallel dimension or reality, then they are part of reality around us. They are classified as paranormal because current science has no known ways of defining them or even verifying them. This is not to say science in the future won't be able to.

I am an agnostic, and I’ve heard it explained more than one that an agnostic believes that god, whatever god may be, lies beyond any human definition or determination and thus denies established religions.

Well…that’s not quite true of all of us. I for one believe that everything can eventually be explained, it just comes down to enough time and effort.

[DarklingAlice]

This is wordy, I apologize in advance, but this discussion hits several of my pet topics.

You can do the research etc., but ultimately skepticism doesn’t take a degree in anything, all it takes is for you to say ‘I don’t believe that, even if the evidence is compelling’. Despite what you see with some media programming, no one can be a ‘professional Skeptic’.

  The above is a very misguided notion brought upon by a fast & loose use of the term scepticism in modern society. Scepticism is a school of philosophy set down by Pyrro and recorded by Sextus Empericus in the 2nd century CE. In a professional and academic sense one of the fundamental principle of scepticism is "To every argument establishing something dogmatically let us oppose some conflicting argument that proceeds dogmatically and is equal to it as regards credibility and lack of credibility." (The Outlines of Pyrrhonism by Sextus Empiricus, translated by Benson Mates, emphasis mine.)

  Saying "I don't believe that, in spite of evidence." Is not scepticism, a sceptic has the burden of bringing an equally plausible and credulous argument and setting it up against that which they do not believe. To say I don't believe it without a reasoned, credible account of your non-belief is just being contrary.

  Also the idea that there is no such thing as a professional sceptic is ludicrous. Every scientist is a sceptic, professionally. If they weren't control tests wouldn't exist. However, I agree that a "belief in scepticism" is an oxymoron. Scepticism is a manner of inquiry or a manner of processing information, it is not a belief system.

I think for many things the rational explanation IS "its paranormal"

That isn't an explanation it is a categorization.

Paranormal doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation, it means its para-normal phenomena (experience beyond what is typical phenomena noticed in this world).

I highly agree with this. Our understanding of the world around us is not in any way near complete, and anyone who tells you otherwise is just selling a belief system. In The Almagest (an astronomical work written sometime in the 100's, don't remember the exact year at the moment) Ptolemy gave indisputable mathematical proof that the solar system moved around the Earth in beautiful and elegant epiciclic motion. It was perfectly sound and corresponded to all observed data. Prior to Harvey's vivisection experiments we firmly believed that the liver was the primary organ of the circulatory system. And for about a hundred years starting in the mid 1660s the world believed that things were combustible due to there being a mysterious gravity defying substance inside them known as phlogiston. The true verifiable facts that make up science do not automatically line up with our observations (a book of optic illusions is all that is needed to prove this).

What I think is more "unbelievable" is that ALL ghost experiences or ALL ufo experiences are wrong / or the product of sensory delusional or memory failing.

There is indeed something to be said for this point, and it does seem initially compelling, but we must again take the example of the book of optic illusions. What we see on first glance is not always the verifiable, reproducible truth. Just because many or even most people are taken in by an optic illusion, does not make it real. For instance, anybody standing on a set of train tracks will look down it and see these two parallel lines meeting at a point on the horizon, it is just how our eyes work, but if we actually walk down the tracks, no such point will ever be encountered, it simply doesn't exist.

It can't be proven scientifically because hard science and paranormal activity are like apples and oranges.  They're completely different animals.  I believe in ghosts because of the many experiences I've had, but I don't believe there will ever be any scientific way to prove they exist.  Whether or not someone believes will just have to be let up to each individual.

If a particular paranormal phenomenon exists, it will be successfully and reliably reproducible. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe a new instrument needs to be devised to detect it, but science marches on, and if it is out there we will reproduce it. The Jainists, in the 6th century BCE proposed the concept of the atom, they had to wait two millenniums until Dalton came around and provided evidence, but it happened. Anything phenomenological is within our grasp.

[The Overlord]

This is wordy, I apologize in advance, but this discussion hits several of my pet topics.

  The above is a very misguided notion brought upon by a fast & loose use of the term scepticism in modern society. Scepticism is a school of philosophy set down by Pyrro and recorded by Sextus Empericus in the 2nd century CE. In a professional and academic sense one of the fundamental principle of scepticism is "To every argument establishing something dogmatically let us oppose some conflicting argument that proceeds dogmatically and is equal to it as regards credibility and lack of credibility." (The Outlines of Pyrrhonism by Sextus Empiricus, translated by Benson Mates, emphasis mine.)

  Saying "I don't believe that, in spite of evidence." Is not scepticism, a sceptic has the burden of bringing an equally plausible and credulous argument and setting it up against that which they do not believe. To say I don't believe it without a reasoned, credible account of your non-belief is just being contrary.

  Also the idea that there is no such thing as a professional sceptic is ludicrous. Every scientist is a sceptic, professionally. If they weren't control tests wouldn't exist. However, I agree that a "belief in scepticism" is an oxymoron. Scepticism is a manner of inquiry or a manner of processing information, it is not a belief system.

Actually it’s not ludicrous, as you’ve missed my point, perhaps I didn’t explain in detail.

A good example is Michael Shermer, who is very often presented as the opposite number on many paranormal shows I’ve watched on cable. Despite a doctorate and being a professor of science and history, the guy regularly fails to put up an argument that’s any more credible than what he’s trying to debunk. When I say ‘professional skeptic’ I am referring to a select few that seem to make a career out of saying ‘this is bullshit.’


But by definition of ancient skepticism, virtually no one is a skeptic in this day and age. Most of the would-bes today just choose not to have certain things violate the sanctity of their bubble of perception.

[Jude]

It can't be proven scientifically because hard science and paranormal activity are like apples and oranges.  They're completely different animals.

This is a statement of belief not fact.  If you have reasons to believe this, I'd like to hear them, but to me it just sounds like an idea which you've adopted because it fit what you wanted to think.  What evidence have you gathered to make this plausible?

I believe in ghosts because of the many experiences I've had, but I don't believe there will ever be any scientific way to prove they exist.  Whether or not someone believes will just have to be let up to each individual.

Relying on the experiential is flawed for reasons previously stated.

Take "Near Death Experiences."  People who go through them often sense an experience that confirms their religious beliefs.  The key thing of note here is that they all experience things that confirm personal beliefs, which if all are taken to be true, then we have quite a paradox.  This is, in itself, evidence that what they've experienced is based off of their expectations.  Add in the way we know that the brain deals with trauma, and it's quite obvious that what people are seeing is simply some version of a dream.

There is a show in Scyfi called Ghost Hunters.  They use scientific equipment like electro-magnetic detectors, cameras, thermal cameras, and digital recorders.  They've caught some very interesting stuff that could not be explained with any rational explanation.

Have you looked for such explanations, or did you just decide this on your own?  Because I've seen quite a few blogs, podcasts, and television shows devoted to explaining the supposedly "unexplainable" phenomenon of these ghost shows.

The equipment they use measures predetermined things.  Fluctuation in heat, electromagnetism, et cetera, not the presence of ghosts.  The problem with those experiences as reliable evidence is that there is an operational definition being proposed based on nothing.  They claim that if something happens with the various meters and devices they employ, it is proof of the existence of the supernatural.  No, it's only proof that whatever those devices are designed to measure has happened.

Television shows are created to make money.  If they had real, documentable, solid evidence of the paranormal, why wouldn't they publish a peer-reviewed paper on it?  Don't you think evidence of the paranormal would be a contender for the Nobel Prize in Science?  Or the Million Dollar Paranormal prize I keep referring to.

That is what paranormal activity is, and always will be; things that cannot be explained by science.

Again, according to this principle which has no basis whatsoever.

Scientific equipment can catch things like the shape of a man walking across a hall on a thermal camera when the people operating the camera saw nothing, but there will never be a way to analyze it and prove what it was.

I'm wondering what your background in science or technology is to actually make such a strong statement.



The bottom line is, things that're considered now part of everyday phenomenon were once considered paranormal (as Alice alluded to).  There was a time in human history when we understood very little and even the rising of waters in Ancient Sumeria was considered to be paranormal and driven by some unseen force, gods as it were.  By induction, it can be reasoned with a fair degree of certainty than anything in the world will eventually be explained by science; every event that science has been able to tackle thus far serves as corroborating evidence to this claim.  And there is no solid proof so far that even a singular event exists that science cannot analyze.  Thusly, that argument is completely without merit.

When I was 8, I was afraid of ghosts.  I asked my dad, "How can you be sure ghosts don't exist?"  He responded, "I've lived 30 some odd years and I've never seen one."  This deceptively simple statement has a nugget of wisdom to it.  Anyone who tells you all of these paranormal phenomenon have no grain of truth to them is making a statement of opinion backed by all of the evidence in their life (including every waking day which they've spent living and observed nothing paranormal) and all of the evidence that has been collected throughout human history by science and individual experience.

Those who claim to have seen firsthand these events are in the vast minority and there are rational explanations that serve as perfect rebuttals to their experiences.  I guess it all depends on what you're going to believe, plausibility or implausibility based on confidence in personal experience.

There is one fact to be gleaned from all of this that no one can deny:  Paranormality is an improbability.

EDIT:  An amusing afterthought.  If ghosts could be left behind after a person's death for a variety of reasons, wouldn't the amount of paranormal reports have increased exponentially with the population?  More people, more deaths, more ghosts.  You would think there'd be a paranormal overcrowding issue too, if the ghosts don't go away on their own.

If ghosts exist, it's gotta be the worst in China given population density and the human rights abuses that would cause the trauma that leads to supernatural persistence as postulated by the average ghost hunter.

...funny that the Chinese government isn't concerned about their hypothesized "ghost problem."

[DarklingAlice]

Reply to The Overlord

Actually it’s not ludicrous, as you’ve missed my point, perhaps I didn’t explain in detail.

A good example is Michael Shermer, who is very often presented as the opposite number on many paranormal shows I’ve watched on cable. Despite a doctorate and being a professor of science and history, the guy regularly fails to put up an argument that’s any more credible than what he’s trying to debunk. When I say ‘professional skeptic’ I am referring to a select few that seem to make a career out of saying ‘this is bullshit.’

Ah, you are correct, I did miss your point. I am afraid I have no idea who Michael Shermer is, one of the consequences of not having television service. If what you say about him is true then he is indeed not a skeptic, and the only ludicrous thing is his assumption of that title. I am actually quite upset to learn that there are people doing this. The good litmus test is that a skeptic says: "This is bullshit and here is why." Instead of just "This is bullshit." And ideally he says it in a respectful, intelligent tone.

But by definition of ancient skepticism, virtually no one is a skeptic in this day and age. Most of the would-bes today just choose not to have certain things violate the sanctity of their bubble of perception.

I really don't think that all us struggling grad students and life long academics don't add up to anything in the virtual reckoning. Maybe we could say virtually no one on popular television? I will agree that a great mass of people aren't likely to go far beyond the 'This is bullshit," phase, but I would like to think that I and others like me are not no one.


Reply to Jude

When I was 8, I was afraid of ghosts.  I asked my dad, "How can you be sure ghosts don't exist?"  He responded, "I've lived 30 some odd years and I've never seen one."  This deceptively simple statement has a nugget of wisdom to it.  Anyone who tells you all of these paranormal phenomenon have no grain of truth to them is making a statement of opinion backed by all of the evidence in their life (including every waking day which they've spent living and observed nothing paranormal) and all of the evidence that has been collected throughout human history by science and individual experience.

I have to say this line of reasoning has always displeased me. Look at the examples I used above:

Ptolemy made an accurate mathematical model of the motion of the planets (so accurate in fact that to this day we still use his formulas to calculate perceived planetary position as they are more accurate and elegant than later mathematics based on heliocentrism) that persisted for ages precisely because it seemed so intuitive and backed up by experience to believe the earth was the center of the solar system. Imagine the hellenistic child asking his father wether the sun really went around the earth. Wouldn't the father respond "Isn't that what you see, every day? The sun moving quickly across the sky?"However once we had more sophisticated optical devices we still proved Ptolemy wrong.

The Jainists, they went around saying there were atoms. Now if you went to them every hundred years and asked: "So seen any atoms yet?" They would have to say no, repeatedly for century after century. However they would still be vindicated by Dalton.

Or think about the process of exploration. If you were to purchase a map of the entire world one day in 4rth century Rome, and asked your cartographer "How do you know this is the whole world?" He would respond "Because, we've been expanding for the entire history of our empire! That is over 1,000 years! If we haven't found it by now, it must not exist!"

To put it statistically: If I roll a hundred sided dice, the number of times it comes up with a number not seven, makes it no more or less likely that the next roll be seven.

Those who claim to have seen firsthand these events are in the vast minority and there are rational explanations that serve as perfect rebuttals to their experiences.

The italicized emphasis in the quote above is mine. This line of reasoning is a significantly stronger source of argument than competing personal experience. We can sit here and throw personal experiences at each other all day and in the end not go anywhere. Rational analysis and good faith attempts to reproduce paranormal phenomenon are the only sources of answers one way or another.

[Jude]

Or think about the process of exploration. If you were to purchase a map of the entire world one day in 4rth century Rome, and asked your cartographer "How do you know this is the whole world?" He would respond "Because, we've been expanding for the entire history of our empire! That is over 1,000 years! If we haven't found it by now, it must not exist!"

To put it statistically: If I roll a hundred sided dice, the number of times it comes up with a number not seven, makes it no more or less likely that the next roll be seven.

You're only highlighting the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.  Inductive reasoning suggests a possibility whereas deductive is airtight.  All of the assumptions made were reasonable given their current level of knowledge and seemed accurate as you said, just as there being no ghosts, etc. seems accurate given our world.  The important thing is the term seems, it can be corroborated, but never confirmed in this manner.  Inductive reasoning isn't just used in this way; it's also used in science itself.

Example:  Newtonian physics; by inductive reasoning offered from experimentation and development of theories it was pretty much 'proven' beyond the shadow of a doubt that they were correct; but now we know they weren't.

The importance here is if you're going to apply inductive reasoning, have faith in the process and not the conclusion.  The process is what generates plausible conclusions, whereas the conclusion always has the chance for fallibility.

That's why I said it's improbable, not impossible.

The italicized emphasis in the quote above is mine. This line of reasoning is a significantly stronger source of argument than competing personal experience. We can sit here and throw personal experiences at each other all day and in the end not go anywhere. Rational analysis and good faith attempts to reproduce paranormal phenomenon are the only sources of answers one way or another.

Personal experience can be used to formulate a hypothesis for testing or decide whether or not to test in the first place, but I agree, it ultimately comes down to a rigid experiment when you want to really confirm or deny.

The important thing is realizing that such a rigid experiment is necessary if you want to truly glimpse at truth.

[HairyHeretic]

The problem is that a lot of what would be considered paranormal experiences are not repeatable, and in some cases not even measurable.

If I see or hear something I cannot explain, and no one else is around, personal testimony is all I can offer, and I'm aware of how unreliable that is.

At the same time I've seen, heard and felt things that I cannot explain away scientifically. I'm not in a position where I can offer them for testing, but they're enough to make me think that there are more things that science can at the present time account for.

[Serephino]

Like Hairy said....

One night I was sitting at my computer on a hot summer evening with my cat curled up in my lap.  I was minding my own business playing a game.  Then all of a sudden my right upper arm was ice cold.  It felt like someone had put an ice pack on my arm, and my cat was staring at the space beside me.

That is what one would call a paranormal experience.  I can't explain why the rest of me was hot, but one spot on my arm was so cold it went a little numb after a few minutes.

I may not have a fancy degree, but I do understand the scientific process.  In order to prove a theory, one must be able to repeat it over and over with the same result.  There are also experiments involved. There are controls and variables, so on and so forth.

So how exactly would you go about proving that the cold spot on my arm was caused by a ghost?  What experiment could you do?  How could it be recreated?  I sit on my computer every night and haven't had that exact experience a second time.  I've had many other experiences I could not rationally explain, but that one has not repeated itself. 

Things like atoms, and the fact that the earth revolves around the sun could be investigated because it's a constant.  Paranormal activity is finicky at best.  It doesn't happen on demand and the same experience is hardly ever repeated. 

[Oniya]

I would put forth that the Chinese have no need to worry about their 'ghost population', because their culture already accepts them.  As for the number of ghosts increasing - why do you say that the number of reports hasn't increased?  There's obviously an increased interest, otherwise TV shows wouldn't be trying to make money off of the concept.  I wonder what might be driving that?

[The Overlord]

Reply to The Overlord
Ah, you are correct, I did miss your point. I am afraid I have no idea who Michael Shermer is, one of the consequences of not having television service. If what you say about him is true then he is indeed not a skeptic, and the only ludicrous thing is his assumption of that title. I am actually quite upset to learn that there are people doing this. The good litmus test is that a skeptic says: "This is bullshit and here is why." Instead of just "This is bullshit." And ideally he says it in a respectful, intelligent tone.

I’ve watched enough of this programming that when they call in the skeptic to give a rebuttal, Shermer invariably comes up, it’s like peanut butter and jelly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer



On paper the guy has an impressive background, all the more interesting because he dabbled in the paranormal and then just turned 180º. He’s usually the opposite number for guys like Stanton T. Friedman, a Canadian ufologist and original civilian investigator of the Roswell incident.

He never really presented anything new and insightful, usually falling back on the same old rebuttals vs. UFO’s, ghosts and entities, etc. that are never really more compelling than what they’re trying to disprove.

My personal feel is that he is snide and smug and hasn’t really backed it all up. It’s not that I entirely disdain the man, a look at his site proves he’s written some very logical articles on a number of things, I’m just not convinced he should be writing on everything.

[Cythieus]

Remote viewing is interesting and I am semi-familiar with the case, at the end of the video the ruins he saw were supposedly on Mars. (which is why he said they were millions of years old.) Still the thought is very chilling to think about.

[Kate]

I think all here should google it and try and train ourselfs up on it.

If "soldiers" can be taught remote viewing ... that means we all can.

and if any here pulls it off - teach us ! :)

then we can all be ... psychic perverts ... lol !

... the brave new world

[Jude]

There's obviously an increased interest, otherwise TV shows wouldn't be trying to make money off of the concept.  I wonder what might be driving that?

I don't know about that.  If anything I'd be willing to bet the amount of people who believe in ghosts has taken a sharp decline in the western world.

There's more TV shows about any topic today, it has to do with economic reasons related to the production and broadcasting of TV shows as well as a diversifying demographic more than anything.

The problem is that a lot of what would be considered paranormal experiences are not repeatable, and in some cases not even measurable.

If I see or hear something I cannot explain, and no one else is around, personal testimony is all I can offer, and I'm aware of how unreliable that is.

At the same time I've seen, heard and felt things that I cannot explain away scientifically. I'm not in a position where I can offer them for testing, but they're enough to make me think that there are more things that science can at the present time account for.

It really depends on what framework for paranormality you're proposing.  Sure, if you honestly believe ghosts are rare, transient beings that appear randomly throughout the world to bother the living every now and then like spiritual nomadic pranksters, then yeah, that's gonna be hard to test.

But if you follow the accepted ideology of most people who believe in them, then you accept the existence of "haunted houses" which are places where paranormal phenomenon regularly occurs according to them.

Science still hasn't been able to observe anything inexplicable in those places either.

I still don't understand the logic.

I went to college to get my degree in mathematics.  Sometimes I would get the answer wrong when doing homework.  If I was very good at the subject, this did not happen very often.  When I got an incorrect answer my first assumption was, "okay I did something wrong" not "I just had a paranormal mathematical encounter!  Somehow 1 + 1 equaled 3?!"

Your brain messes up.  It's just a fact.  People imagine thing, they see things that aren't there, they have dreams, hallucinations, etc.  That's an explanation for any one-off event you've experienced which is perfectly scientific and probably what happened in your case.

[Kate]

Jude, yes "false memory" or "false experiences" exist - none are debating that.

Do false memories or false experiences account for all ghost sightings etc ... is what we are discussing.

For something to be accepted by science it has to be testable and repeatable - in highly idealistic circumstances - and confirmed statistically with a degree of confidence.
Science doesn't know e=mc2 ... it just seems to be the case when some some thigns are tried a few times enough to be deemed exploitatably true, ie "science".

Para-normal (As in atypical) imply that things are not as typical as other physical phenomena, repeating tests for a ghosts existence based on say otherwise unaccounted for sights or sounds - attempting repeatability is only really a useful approach for testing theories of what intices them to appear in the first place if they do exist. Some beleive the ghosts themselves may not be aware they are "incarnate" ...
and like are wondering around blink into and out of reality randomly.

Science may be "prove" that the paranormal exists statistically without any additional showings if  later accurate models of the mind's experience v's false
reports on average etc were understood in more detail.

Until science disproves something existing - which it can't ... it can't be used as an argument to be a condition for something's existence.

[Jude]

Jude, yes "false memory" or "false experiences" exist - none are debating that.

Do false memories or false experiences account for all ghost sightings etc ... is what we are discussing.

I don't understand why you would conclude that they don't explain ghost sightings; they're rare enough that there's no problem with such an explanation.  So why reach outside the hierarchy of normality and suggest an ad hoc hypothesis of a paranormal world when a normal explanation works just fine?

For something to be accepted by science it has to be testable and repeatable - in highly idealistic circumstances - and confirmed statistically with a degree of confidence.
Science doesn't know e=mc2 ... it just seems to be the case when some some thigns are tried a few times enough to be deemed exploitatably true, ie "science".

Well, no, science isn't about proof, it's about making very damn good guesses which can be relied upon almost as truth.

Para-normal (As in atypical) imply that things are not as typical as other physical phenomena, repeating tests for a ghosts existence based on say otherwise unaccounted for sights or sounds - attempting repeatability is only really a useful approach for testing theories of what intices them to appear in the first place if they do exist. Some beleive the ghosts themselves may not be aware they are "incarnate" ...
and like are wondering around blink into and out of reality randomly.

Isn't it more logical to incorporate the observations into a previously existing framework, i.e. hallucinations, etc, than to propose an entirely new theory as the framework of understanding for those events?

Belief in such a framework has no utility, needlessly complicates the situation, and is admittedly untestable.  The first two defy basic principles of science (occam's razor and I forget the other one...).  Thus the scientist chooses to reject paranormality.

Science may be "prove" that the paranormal exists statistically without any additional showings if  later accurate models of the mind's experience v's false
reports on average etc were understood in more detail.

I don't understand what you're getting at exactly here.

Until science disproves something existing - which it can't ... it can't be used as an argument to be a condition for something's existence.

You're making two separate statements here...

1)  "Until science disproves something it can't be used as an argument to be a condition for something's existence."

2)  "Science cannot disprove the existence of something."

Which by deductive logic means:

3)  "Science cannot be used as a condition for something's existence."

I think the problem with those statements is "prove."  Science doesn't prove anything ever.  It's all about probabilities and likelihoods.  The goal of science is to produce a statement which is confirmed or denied to a high degree of certainty.

Science can, in fact, imply to a high degree of certainty that specific objects do not exist.

Furthermore (and this is what we're talking about exactly) we have two possible explanations for an event.  One is compatible with current scientific theory which is based on the gathering of evidence, rationality, etc; and another which diverges in another direction entirely and if it were accepted as truth, would require a massive reworking of many scientific areas.

Why on earth would a rational mind not choose the explanation that falls in line with all of the established evidence, simply based on their own fallible experience?

[Silk]

Open-mindedness

Will I need to say more?

[HairyHeretic]

I don't understand why you would conclude that they don't explain ghost sightings; they're rare enough that there's no problem with such an explanation.  So why reach outside the hierarchy of normality and suggest an ad hoc hypothesis of a paranormal world when a normal explanation works just fine?

In my own case because I cannot rationally explain away the things that I have experienced. I have an engineering degree, and work in the telecoms field, so I'm quite used to scientific, rational, deductive thinking.

The experiences I've had down through the years, I have not been able to explain them away. A couple were one offs, others have been variations on a theme that I have experienced .. let say 10 times, though it could be more.

[Kate]

Silk - no you don't NEED to say more but your link doesn't really prove anything, what you have shown is a suitable argument for "those beleiving in god" not to insist others adopt their belief - a god that does not have traits of the physical world - and is "outside" our existence or awareness.

What we are talking of is experiences and reports of things that ARE noticeable and do effect our environment (I can link a famous poltergeist case if any are curious) - that stump many's faith in our current science's explanations.
*

Jude, yes "false memory" or "false experiences" exist - none are debating that.
Do false memories or false experiences account for all ghost sightings etc ... is what we are discussing. - Me

"I don't understand why you would conclude that they don't explain ghost sightings; they're rare enough that there's no problem with such an explanation.  So why reach outside the hierarchy of normality and suggest an ad hoc hypothesis of a paranormal world when a normal explanation works just fine?" - Jude


Because for some cases the conditions of false memory or "sensors misfiring" is are MORE improbable explaination than "ghost" to some experiencers.

I hear strange voices often, but I dont think that much of them - enough for me to beleive that perhaps its my mind mis-firing some nerons or something..

BUT some experiences are not explained so easily - for example those that effect several sensors - sight, temperature and sound - or effect several people or a person
AND a cat - when they are witnessed by many at the same time its harder to beleive they are "false memories". YES it could be true that a false memory effects more than one sense, YES its true that the mind can "impose" its belief system on a memory, yes after a fact two can talk about something then come to a mutual conclusion which is false.... BUT ... to many these seem more unlikely than"entity / energy that is conscious"

[Oniya]

I don't understand what you're getting at exactly here.
You're making two separate statements here...

1)  "Until science disproves something it can't be used as an argument to be a condition for something's existence."

2)  "Science cannot disprove the existence of something."

Which by deductive logic means:

3)  "Science cannot be used as a condition for something's existence."

Just because you can't (or that it is very difficult to) prove a negative (statement 2) does not imply that you can't prove a positive.  Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions (Hofstadter 1989).  Does that mean that mathematics can't be used to prove anything?

[Jude]

Because for some cases the conditions of false memory or "sensors misfiring" is are MORE improbable explaination than "ghost" to some experiencers.

The problem is with the judgment you're employing.  Stating that it is more probably for a ghost to exist than for your mind to be malfunctioning is not an accurate statement.  There is concrete, documented evidence of the ways in which the human mind malfunctions.  I can show you websites that have examples of it that will fool you into seeing certain things you did not see.  Sensory illusion, placebo, etc. all of the ways in which experience is fallible are clearly documented.

People who believe in the existence of the paranormal are purposely ignoring the rational explanation and going outside the framework of science which already solves the confusion, and creating their own theory.  That's not rational unless you have a reason to believe that the current framework does not explain the situation.  Such a reason would be empirical evidence in the form of suitable photographs, video footage, etc.

But again, all of the 'hard evidence' paranormal research put forth is blurry and useless.

You'd think with 7 billion people (almost 8 now) on this planet one of them would've obtained some hard evidence which is indisputable by now.  But none of them have.  What does this tell you?

I hear strange voices often, but I dont think that much of them - enough for me to beleive that perhaps its my mind mis-firing some nerons or something..

I hear things too.  It's an example of your mind's amazing ability to organize chaos into something tangible.  Human beings constantly attempt to analyze sensory data and filter it into something meaningful.  This is why people see the Virgin Mary in Windows, Jesus on toast, and images in clouds; what you're describing is just happening on an auditory level.

BUT some experiences are not explained so easily - for example those that effect several sensors - sight, temperature and sound - or effect several people or a person
AND a cat - when they are witnessed by many at the same time its harder to beleive they are "false memories". YES it could be true that a false memory effects more than one sense, YES its true that the mind can "impose" its belief system on a memory, yes after a fact two can talk about something then come to a mutual conclusion which is false.... BUT ... to many these seem more unlikely than"entity / energy that is conscious"

I'd put forth it only seems that way because they're employing magical thinking.

Just because you can't (or that it is very difficult to) prove a negative (statement 2) does not imply that you can't prove a positive.  Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions (Hofstadter 1989).  Does that mean that mathematics can't be used to prove anything?

I'm not that one who said any of that, I was dissecting her statement.

[Oniya]

I was actually trying to add support to your deduction.  Probably should have tried to quote both your post and Kate's.  *tips hat*

[Kate]

O -

well - i really did mean concerning proving it doesn't exist ... but I get your drift.

Mathmatics can be used to prove something within its own context.

ie ... assuming a + b = b + a ... and so on and so on ... yes logically other statements of truth can be made that are logical in its own context.

The "rules of reality" however we don't know before hand, science is guessing them (very good guesses or useful guesses in many contexts, so much so we call them "laws", but they are more theories that have high prediction tendencies for MOST of the observed. repeatable experiences we have.

*

J-

"Stating that it is more probably for a ghost to exist than for your mind to be malfunctioning is not an accurate statement.  " - J

"People who believe in the existence of the paranormal are purposely ignoring the rational explanation and going outside the framework of science which already solves the confusion, and creating their own theory.  That's not rational unless you have a reason to believe that the current framework does not explain the situation.  Such a reason would be empirical evidence in the form of suitable photographs, video footage, etc."  - J

- experience / video footage / photographs exist of paranormal phenomena.

blurry =! useless, all ghost reports = blurry is not true. Ghost reports exist of people seemingly as real as the living just "disappearing" or doing something that doesnt logically make sense if they were a living body. Those previously skeptics or unbeleivers have been changed by some experiences because they found the most logical conclusion with the CURRENT state of science was = paranomal / ghost / ufo / alien etc.

"You'd think with 7 billion people (almost 8 now) on this planet one of them would've obtained some hard evidence which is indisputable by now.  But none of them have.  What does this tell you?"

Current scientific theories are being disputed by respectable scientists CONSTANTLY in order to cater for increasingly exotic phenomena.

Nothing on this world exists that can not be disputed by someone at some point
regardless of the evidence - some (I am one of them) may feel that any logical mind can not dispute the existence of the ufo phenomena implying "alien"s of some sort - even if some contributory "evidence" has been discovered to be hoaxes or mistaken identification, all you need is one that isn't discredited by testable means for the hoaxes not to prove anything about future experiences.

Some would dispute 1 + 1 = 2, I'm sure some do.

[Serephino]

Yes, what about when more than one person experiences the same thing?

Another example; A few friends and I were walking around an old mine one night.  We see these barrels that some of our neighbors had down there to shoot at.  Now the ground is not level.  There are piles of coal dust, and saw dust from when there was a logging camp there.

One of my friends kicked a barrel and it rolled down hill.  It wasn't a steep hill, I'd say maybe a slant of 12-15*.  It rolled a few feet then stopped.  Then it rolled back up the slant toward us and stopped at our feet.  All 4 of us saw it. 

So you're saying the barrel that each and every one of us saw never actually rolled away, but 4 people imagined it.  The barrel really just fell over sideways and stayed there.  Our brains misfired to make us think it rolled, then our minds had to imagine the barrel rolling back to explain why it was lying at our feet.

Oh, and my ex boyfriend and I imagined a stack of CD's sitting on my dresser flying across the room and hitting him.  The mark he had on his forehead was just his body reacting to the hallucination.  Our feeble minds were just trying to justify why those CD's moved 3ft and ended up on the ground all by themselves, so we imagined them flying, when in reality um... there was a spacewarp and they teleported!

Yes, it does sound ridiculous, but that's been your whole argument.  Paranormal experiences are simply are brains misfiring. 

If paranormal experiences are so rare, then why have I experienced so much in my life?  Why do all these ghost hunter TV have inboxes stuffed full from people who want them to come investigate a certain place?  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are probably thousands of people who have experiences, but don't tell anyone because of people like you who seem to love telling them they're crazy and/or too stupid to realize the truth.   

And that ghost hunter show I was talking about... They do try to debunk everything.  If they come across something that doesn't make sense at first they try everything they can think of to recreate it and explain it.  Sometimes they do, and sometimes they can't.   

[Cythieus]

Yes, what about when more than one person experiences the same thing?

Another example; A few friends and I were walking around an old mine one night.  We see these barrels that some of our neighbors had down there to shoot at.  Now the ground is not level.  There are piles of coal dust, and saw dust from when there was a logging camp there.

One of my friends kicked a barrel and it rolled down hill.  It wasn't a steep hill, I'd say maybe a slant of 12-15*.  It rolled a few feet then stopped.  Then it rolled back up the slant toward us and stopped at our feet.  All 4 of us saw it. 

So you're saying the barrel that each and every one of us saw never actually rolled away, but 4 people imagined it.  The barrel really just fell over sideways and stayed there.  Our brains misfired to make us think it rolled, then our minds had to imagine the barrel rolling back to explain why it was lying at our feet.

Oh, and my ex boyfriend and I imagined a stack of CD's sitting on my dresser flying across the room and hitting him.  The mark he had on his forehead was just his body reacting to the hallucination.  Our feeble minds were just trying to justify why those CD's moved 3ft and ended up on the ground all by themselves, so we imagined them flying, when in reality um... there was a spacewarp and they teleported!

Yes, it does sound ridiculous, but that's been your whole argument.  Paranormal experiences are simply are brains misfiring. 

If paranormal experiences are so rare, then why have I experienced so much in my life?  Why do all these ghost hunter TV have inboxes stuffed full from people who want them to come investigate a certain place?  And that is only the tip of the iceberg.  There are probably thousands of people who have experiences, but don't tell anyone because of people like you who seem to love telling them they're crazy and/or too stupid to realize the truth.   

And that ghost hunter show I was talking about... They do try to debunk everything.  If they come across something that doesn't make sense at first they try everything they can think of to recreate it and explain it.  Sometimes they do, and sometimes they can't.   

The problem with all of this is that the skeptics are going to be as bad about trying to disprove you as they can. I have heard the stories about mass hallucinations and other things which don't seem to old much water most of the time and the ball lightning thing that others use to explain UFOs.

Paranormal experiences aren't rare, but to those who don't believe in them and are reluctant to give them second thoughts they are usually shrugged off as something else and the person moves on. Almost everyone I know has had some experience of a paranormal nature. Whether it be seeing something or just something more internal.

And what's funny is that one of the Ghost Hunter shows actually caught what they thought was a ghost, it was a reflection of a camera man and they admitted it when they tested the footage out back at their offices. So they don't seem to out and out lie.

[Serephino]

*sighs*

I know.  My mother is the same way.  When she moved into her new house there was a constant knocking sound which she said was just the pipes... The brand new pipes that had just been installed in the house that was just built...  When the dishes rattle in the cupboards they're settling. 

I was the same way as a kid.  When strange stuff happened it scared me so I grasped for a rational explanation so I could sleep at night.  I know my mother is just scared too.  When my father died she acted very strange.  She became religious for a little while.  But I think if she admits ghosts exist, then souls exist.  If souls exist then God exists.  If God exists then she's probably going to Hell.  So it's just easier for her to explain it all away and stay in a nice neat little box where 1+1 always equals 2. 

[Cythieus]

*sighs*

I know.  My mother is the same way.  When she moved into her new house there was a constant knocking sound which she said was just the pipes... The brand new pipes that had just been installed in the house that was just built...  When the dishes rattle in the cupboards they're settling. 

I was the same way as a kid.  When strange stuff happened it scared me so I grasped for a rational explanation so I could sleep at night.  I know my mother is just scared too.  When my father died she acted very strange.  She became religious for a little while.  But I think if she admits ghosts exist, then souls exist.  If souls exist then God exists.  If God exists then she's probably going to Hell.  So it's just easier for her to explain it all away and stay in a nice neat little box where 1+1 always equals 2. 

The problem with that rationalization is that it assumes God is the Christian-Jewish-Muslim version and that a ghost is a soul. It could just be energy. I actually had this talk with my dad a while back, he saw a Native American in full costume at a Fort where there are no costume actors. My dad is pretty rational, more so than me, but he's told me things about some Paranormal stuff that seems pretty undeniable.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

African-Americans are of inferior intellect than European Caucasians due to the structure of the skull and size of various portions of the brain.  Possessing less intellect is a genetic condition of their race so that they are not in control of what occurs.  Those expressing intellect are an evolutionary abnormality.  This was a leading theory derived by anthropology at its time based on the measurement of human skulls.  Later this theory, used as fact by many in power to subjugate African-Americans and explain away slavery and inferior living conditions, was debunked.

Minorities, the impoverished and women are all of inferior intelligence.  According to IQ scores gathered throughout decades, these groups consistently score lower.  Research indicates this trend has not corrected itself and the IQ of these populations remain low within a 97% confidence level with little variation.  Theory not debunked and the defining text, The Bell Curve, is still used in social policies with the basis that these groups are not deserving of any funding since they will not improve at all.

Women were once treated, medically, for hysteria.  Something that we would now consider an anxiety disorder and treat with medication.  Women were told by their physician to lay back, put their feet in stirrups and had a vibrator pushed against their genitals.  Essentially they were lead to a climax to “fix” whatever was wrong with them.  Of course this hysteria was diagnosed by the physician, a man, for any action that just didn’t make sense to him.  More than likely the woman needed someone to talk to or perhaps counseling than an orgasm.  Debunked and unethical, thankfully unless someone has a medical fetish.

Need we even speak of the loving embarrassment to medicine that is homosexuality?  Categorizing this lifestyle as a disease of the mind and in need of therapy, medication and sometimes hospitalization.  Not yet debunked, though largely not considered a popular choice.  Researchers still use this principle to guide grants, experiments and sometimes even social argument. 

Science makes mistakes.  The scientific method is performed by human beings with all their bias, beliefs and desires.  Research grants are given by committees that are ruled by their agendas and needs.  Science is guided by the hand of people and so is not sterile.  Do not act as if this is a flawless system that is rising above the flames of ancient witchcraft and religious foolery.  While science has come a long way from the days of alchemy and little Albert, it still has a long way to go in understanding every facet of the world.

Paranormal activity has been part of our world since the days when man first looked up at the sun.  The paranormal has not disappeared despite the advances of science and in truth science has yet to debunk paranormal activity on a large scale.  Some of their conclusions about mass hallucinations, reflections of light off gas or trickery are downright insulting and not repeatable.  I remember taking a class on skepticism and realizing that if the theories science was proposing to explain away paranormal activity was put through the same scrutiny, it would fail miserably.  Bias dripped from every page as science rushed to convince everyone that they had it all figured out.

I will dispute Silk’s little video in this.  Science can be amazingly close minded.  When a scientist looks at something that they cannot explain through an experiment, they don’t attempt to rationalize into a mold.  They simply admit this is not something that can currently be measured or tested.  Something, that could be understood by science with the right instruments and theory, is occurring here that requires further investigation.  Which there are areas of science that deal with investigating, explaining and understanding paranormal activity. 

[Cythieus]

I read the first part of this and was like "Whoa, wait...what the...." but I see what you're doing now.

[Jude]

African-Americans are of inferior intellect than European Caucasians due to the structure of the skull and size of various portions of the brain.  Possessing less intellect is a genetic condition of their race so that they are not in control of what occurs.  Those expressing intellect are an evolutionary abnormality.  This was a leading theory derived by anthropology at its time based on the measurement of human skulls.  Later this theory, used as fact by many in power to subjugate African-Americans and explain away slavery and inferior living conditions, was debunked.

Minorities, the impoverished and women are all of inferior intelligence.  According to IQ scores gathered throughout decades, these groups consistently score lower.  Research indicates this trend has not corrected itself and the IQ of these populations remain low within a 97% confidence level with little variation.  Theory not debunked and the defining text, The Bell Curve, is still used in social policies with the basis that these groups are not deserving of any funding since they will not improve at all.

Women were once treated, medically, for hysteria.  Something that we would now consider an anxiety disorder and treat with medication.  Women were told by their physician to lay back, put their feet in stirrups and had a vibrator pushed against their genitals.  Essentially they were lead to a climax to “fix” whatever was wrong with them.  Of course this hysteria was diagnosed by the physician, a man, for any action that just didn’t make sense to him.  More than likely the woman needed someone to talk to or perhaps counseling than an orgasm.  Debunked and unethical, thankfully unless someone has a medical fetish.

Need we even speak of the loving embarrassment to medicine that is homosexuality?  Categorizing this lifestyle as a disease of the mind and in need of therapy, medication and sometimes hospitalization.  Not yet debunked, though largely not considered a popular choice.  Researchers still use this principle to guide grants, experiments and sometimes even social argument.

What you're describing here is the strength of science; not a weakness.  These are all false theories put forth by individuals in the name of science which science eventually rejected for being the incorrect statements they were.  This isn't a statement of its flaws; it's an illustration of what makes science authoritative and trustworthy:  it's a system of thought that is self-correcting.

Science makes mistakes.  The scientific method is performed by human beings with all their bias, beliefs and desires.  Research grants are given by committees that are ruled by their agendas and needs.  Science is guided by the hand of people and so is not sterile.  Do not act as if this is a flawless system that is rising above the flames of ancient witchcraft and religious foolery.  While science has come a long way from the days of alchemy and little Albert, it still has a long way to go in understanding every facet of the world.

As you said, the flaw is with its practitioners and establishments.  You're making a fallacy out of being unable to separate the belief from the believer.

Paranormal activity has been part of our world since the days when man first looked up at the sun.  The paranormal has not disappeared despite the advances of science and in truth science has yet to debunk paranormal activity on a large scale.  Some of their conclusions about mass hallucinations, reflections of light off gas or trickery are downright insulting and not repeatable.  I remember taking a class on skepticism and realizing that if the theories science was proposing to explain away paranormal activity was put through the same scrutiny, it would fail miserably.  Bias dripped from every page as science rushed to convince everyone that they had it all figured out.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking of science as a rigid, elitist club of few that promotes a world view and bashes any opposing thought that would threaten their agenda.  This point of view has been repeatedly put forth by religious institutions, political figures, and most recently celebrities; like in that poor excuse for a film Expelled.

The fact of the matter is, science is an open body.  Anyone who agrees to the terms can do science, and the terms simply rule out human error.  If you want to gather evidence of paranormality and present it, you can do so.  All you have to do is follow the criteria and present your findings.  People who try to do this fail, because they cannot find the evidence to be presented.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this:  because sufficient evidence cannot be found, it is unlikely that paranormality is not a genuine phenomenon or science is flawed.

Paranormality proponents first try the process and it fails, then they throw it away because it doesn't give them the result they wanted.  This speaks volumes; it says that their mind is already made up before they even began the investigation and they were simply looking for a way to justify their belief.

This makes your belief in paranormality a religion: i.e. not rational, but faith-based.  Which really renders all of this discussion null and void.  There's no point in tossing logic at true believers.

Note, no where have I said that paranormality is impossible.  I said it's improbable.

I will dispute Silk’s little video in this.  Science can be amazingly close minded.  When a scientist looks at something that they cannot explain through an experiment, they don’t attempt to rationalize into a mold.  They simply admit this is not something that can currently be measured or tested.  Something, that could be understood by science with the right instruments and theory, is occurring here that requires further investigation.  Which there are areas of science that deal with investigating, explaining and understanding paranormal activity.

And as I previously stated, all of those areas fail to present anything of substance, which is why claims of paranormality are not taken seriously by scientific consensus.

As for people who speak of mass hallucinations, watch the video that Silk posted.  It explains why giving a piece of anecdotal evidence as support for your hypothesis is not an admissible token of evidence.

[Serephino]

Yes, this whole conversation is pointless, though not because of those of us who believe.  Askie's point was that the things we know now through scientific study could prove false in a decade or so.  At least that's the point I think she was trying to make. 

You say that's what makes science so perfect, but that is incredibly flawed logic.  What it really means is that it's hard to know what to believe in, because eventually facts are usually proven wrong.  It really is all guesswork.  Hell, what is known as depression now could turn out to be something completely different and anti-depressants won't exist anymore. 

But you know what's funny?  All the old beliefs that are a 'placebo effect' still hold water after all these years.  If you look at paranormal activity from a scientific and rational point of view nothing makes sense.  However, if you look at that shadow walking half way across the yard and disappearing and say it's a ghost, it makes sense.

Modern medicine?  Don't get me started.  Allergy medications make my head feel like a giant balloon and raises my blood pressure.  But the old remedy of black tea with a little honey works just as good without the side effects. 

Science can't cure the common cold, but I can.  Chicken soup with a dash of cinnamon and thyme.  It works every time.  And if it gets really bad there's this tea called Gypsy Cold Care.  That stuff is a miracle cure. 

I'm sure you'll say the stuff works because I believe it will.  Well, if my mind is really that powerful, then why do I need modern medicine at all?  Just give me a few pounds of sugar pills and I'll be fine. 

But you Jude, have been saying the same thing over and over again.  Science is perfect and since the paranormal can't be proven by scientific means then it doesn't really exist and we're just imagining things.  You're not bringing anything new to the table, you're just ripping apart everything anyone else says with the same closed minded statements.

[Oniya]

Science has actually gone a long way to verify (note, I didn't say 'prove') the old remedies.  Garlic, something my grandfather recommended for darn near everything, has been shown to have possible antibiotic and cholesterol-reducing properties.  The honey thing - I was told that it works by introducing small amounts of the allergen into the system, much like an allergy shot.  In addition, the honey helps coat the throat, which eases the scratchy feeling.

And chicken soup?  If it's made right, you've got a boatload of vitamin-rich veggies, warm fluid, and protein - throw in a matzo ball, and you've got your carbs - all of those things you need to fuel your body and help it fight the infection.  A quick glance shows that both cinnamon and thyme have antiseptic and antibiotic properties.  If someone's made it for you (or at least heated it up for you in the microwave  ;D), then you've got a powerful mood-elevator - another thing that has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on the immune system.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Jude]

Yes, this whole conversation is pointless, though not because of those of us who believe.  Askie's point was that the things we know now through scientific study could prove false in a decade or so.  At least that's the point I think she was trying to make.

Anything you know could be proven false.  Nothing in life never is certain.  Science provides a higher degree of certainty than magical thinking and the sort of guesswork that people employ, but you can choose to believe in nothing too if you so wish.  That's the only way to not be wrong about anything ever.

You say that's what makes science so perfect, but that is incredibly flawed logic.  What it really means is that it's hard to know what to believe in, because eventually facts are usually proven wrong.  It really is all guesswork.  Hell, what is known as depression now could turn out to be something completely different and anti-depressants won't exist anymore.

If you can find me calling science 'perfect' anywhere, I'll give you 10 dollars on Paypal.  Putting words in people's mouth is a good example of the straw man fallacy.

I've never proclaimed that science proves anything or provides absolute certainty; in fact I have said the opposite.  I think I've been quite candid about the fallibility of science; it doesn't provide proof, just good guesses.

Furthermore, you can't just say I'm using "incredibly flawed logic" and then not explain it, then expect to be taken seriously.  Refuting of people's points typically involves explanation.

But you know what's funny?  All the old beliefs that are a 'placebo effect' still hold water after all these years.  If you look at paranormal activity from a scientific and rational point of view nothing makes sense.  However, if you look at that shadow walking half way across the yard and disappearing and say it's a ghost, it makes sense.

That...makes sense?  How?

Modern medicine?  Don't get me started.  Allergy medications make my head feel like a giant balloon and raises my blood pressure.  But the old remedy of black tea with a little honey works just as good without the side effects.

Science can't cure the common cold, but I can.  Chicken soup with a dash of cinnamon and thyme.  It works every time.  And if it gets really bad there's this tea called Gypsy Cold Care.  That stuff is a miracle cure.

You can't cure the common cold like that because it's a virus.  What you're doing is helping to alleviate the symptoms by dealing with the resulting sinus issues.

I'm sure you'll say the stuff works because I believe it will.  Well, if my mind is really that powerful, then why do I need modern medicine at all?  Just give me a few pounds of sugar pills and I'll be fine.

Because placebo doesn't fix real problems; the examples you've given are trivial.  Try casting a spell on someone who gets hit by a car instead of going to the hospital, succeed, then you'll have a point.

But you Jude, have been saying the same thing over and over again.  Science is perfect and since the paranormal can't be proven by scientific means then it doesn't really exist and we're just imagining things.  You're not bringing anything new to the table, you're just ripping apart everything anyone else says with the same closed minded statements.

When did I say the paranormal didn't exist?

If you actually carefully read what I say you'll see that I said it was improbable, not impossible.  That's been a constant mantra.  I don't speak in absolutes, because to do so almost always leaves you wrong.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, what I’m displaying here is the arrogance of science.  To make broad, sweeping claims with supposed facts that often times they do not fully understand.  Case in point would be The Bell Curve, which is not debunked even though you seem to believe it is for whatever reason.  The data used by the scientists for this book was history of IQ scores.  Scores were analyzed, put their impeccable statistical analysis and churned out with their conclusions then analyzed by some extremely qualified professionals.  The conclusions were as I pointed out.  Minorities, impoverished, single mothers, women in general are all intellectually inferior.  This book was then put forth by the scientific community with absolute certainty and social policies enacted.  Few people bothered to question exactly what an IQ test actually tests. 

Same thing can be said for global warming.  Millions, if not billions, of dollars are being lobbied across the world over this issue.  The conclusions are “blurry” to use your word and the data is inconclusive and little understood.  Yet people are in fact proposing economic warfare on countries that do not comply with the highly debated conclusions.  Agendas are being pushed by scientists wanting grant money and their name in magazines alongside politicians wanting a vote.  Insurance rates in coastal cities skyrocketed because scientists made the blanket claim that global warming would generate massive, unseen before hurricanes.  No hurricanes, but science is still marching on with their claims.

Chaotic is correct by saying that ideas and evidence change.  The flaw in the logic is indeed to keep believing in science because some day science will get it right.  Similar to staying in a bad relationship cause one day that person will be a rock star.

There’s a lot of faith involved in people’s belief of science.  People believe the authority of science, because science seems to know what is going on with the world.  Science has a great gig going for it in regard to having people believe it.  Were aliens to land on the front lawn of the White House tomorrow, science would begin claiming to understand aliens.  Suddenly aliens are a scientific matter, no longer paranormal.  Acetaminophen, Tylenol, was being used by herbalists long before modern medicine “discovered” its existence.  Yet this is considered a medication, not an herbal remedy even though it remains largely untouched.  Science once again stepping forward to claim something while talking down what was before.  Those that believe in herbal remedies or have faith based practices dealing with them are still wrong, even though modern medicine uses their concoctions. 

Another example might be the practice of nurses to offer holistic care.  Nurses are encouraged to pray with their patients or to at least allow them to pray, working the religious observations into their care.  Nurses are encouraged to support a patient’s beliefs in regards to death and illness, to not argue with them.  Nursing is now considered an evidenced-based practice, meaning evidence must be supplied before practice can be implemented.  Evidence is supplied that people with religious views, hope and a belief in the spiritual have better outcomes and experience less anxiety.  Course, this is another illustration of the human mind and not of religion.

Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology.  Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition.  The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology.  Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner.  The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine.  This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned. 

I would like to believe that you are not naïve enough to believe that science is an open-community.  Perhaps at its inception it was, similar to how Christianity was open in the beginning with its wandering disciples and wise men.  The scientific community is no more open to public skepticism by a lay person than the institution of the Catholic Church is to a non-believer.  I’m sure there are stories of backyard scientists making discoveries with their little microscopes.  Certainly there are papers written by the rare sparks of invention or inspiration.  Similar to the rare prophet that sparks up or the odd document of religious inspiration discovered from an unlikely source. 

Do I believe in science?  Certainly, to an extent I have to believe in science.  When one of my patients tells me that there is a demon outside her window telling her to kill her roommate, I don’t go sprinkle holy water outside.  When one tells me that we are all devils and she is a servant of God, I start asking for ativan.  When someone says that Jesus is in their room, I don’t kneel down to worship wherever he believes the image to be.  If someone asks me how to get rid of their allergies, I’m more likely to recommend Benadryl or something similar.  I am a product and subscriber to the religion of science, but I also keep a healthy dose of skepticism for that religion as well as my own regarding Christianity.

When faith, in either science or the paranormal, blinds you to the possibility of other things than indeed the argument is pointless.

[Jude]

No, what I’m displaying here is the arrogance of science.  To make broad, sweeping claims with supposed facts that often times they do not fully understand.  Case in point would be The Bell Curve, which is not debunked even though you seem to believe it is for whatever reason.  The data used by the scientists for this book was history of IQ scores.  Scores were analyzed, put their impeccable statistical analysis and churned out with their conclusions then analyzed by some extremely qualified professionals.  The conclusions were as I pointed out.  Minorities, impoverished, single mothers, women in general are all intellectually inferior.  This book was then put forth by the scientific community with absolute certainty and social policies enacted.  Few people bothered to question exactly what an IQ test actually tests.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.  IQ is a hotly criticized subject.  There are multiple theories on it.  That's not even science you're talking about; it's social science.  There is a large difference between the two.

Same thing can be said for global warming.  Millions, if not billions, of dollars are being lobbied across the world over this issue.  The conclusions are “blurry” to use your word and the data is inconclusive and little understood.  Yet people are in fact proposing economic warfare on countries that do not comply with the highly debated conclusions.  Agendas are being pushed by scientists wanting grant money and their name in magazines alongside politicians wanting a vote.  Insurance rates in coastal cities skyrocketed because scientists made the blanket claim that global warming would generate massive, unseen before hurricanes.  No hurricanes, but science is still marching on with their claims.

Again, I encourage you to educate yourself on the matter.  I suggest looking up "The American Denial of Global Warming" on Youtube by UTC Television.

Chaotic is correct by saying that ideas and evidence change.  The flaw in the logic is indeed to keep believing in science because some day science will get it right.  Similar to staying in a bad relationship cause one day that person will be a rock star.

There’s a lot of faith involved in people’s belief of science.  People believe the authority of science, because science seems to know what is going on with the world.  Science has a great gig going for it in regard to having people believe it.  Were aliens to land on the front lawn of the White House tomorrow, science would begin claiming to understand aliens.  Suddenly aliens are a scientific matter, no longer paranormal.  Acetaminophen, Tylenol, was being used by herbalists long before modern medicine “discovered” its existence.  Yet this is considered a medication, not an herbal remedy even though it remains largely untouched.  Science once again stepping forward to claim something while talking down what was before.  Those that believe in herbal remedies or have faith based practices dealing with them are still wrong, even though modern medicine uses their concoctions.

Belief in science requires faith in reason, it does require faith, you're absolutely right.  What makes it authoritative is that if you go through the process it churns out practical applications for use in the real world.

I'm curious as to what you're proposing in the absence of science anyway?  What process works better?  How would you fix it?

Another example might be the practice of nurses to offer holistic care.  Nurses are encouraged to pray with their patients or to at least allow them to pray, working the religious observations into their care.  Nurses are encouraged to support a patient’s beliefs in regards to death and illness, to not argue with them.  Nursing is now considered an evidenced-based practice, meaning evidence must be supplied before practice can be implemented.  Evidence is supplied that people with religious views, hope and a belief in the spiritual have better outcomes and experience less anxiety.  Course, this is another illustration of the human mind and not of religion.

There's a difference between evidence based medicine and science based medicine as well.

A lot of nurses buy into Therapeutic Touch which a little girl proved was absolute nonsense during a school project.

Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology.  Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition.  The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology.  Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner.  The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine.  This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned.

So wait; you're claiming that because people equate the sins of a religion with its ideology unfairly, the same can be done to science?

I would like to believe that you are not naïve enough to believe that science is an open-community.  Perhaps at its inception it was, similar to how Christianity was open in the beginning with its wandering disciples and wise men.  The scientific community is no more open to public skepticism by a lay person than the institution of the Catholic Church is to a non-believer.  I’m sure there are stories of backyard scientists making discoveries with their little microscopes.  Certainly there are papers written by the rare sparks of invention or inspiration.  Similar to the rare prophet that sparks up or the odd document of religious inspiration discovered from an unlikely source.

If you're going to make claims that science isn't an open community, you should actually provide evidence to support this.

Do I believe in science?  Certainly, to an extent I have to believe in science.  When one of my patients tells me that there is a demon outside her window telling her to kill her roommate, I don’t go sprinkle holy water outside.  When one tells me that we are all devils and she is a servant of God, I start asking for ativan.  When someone says that Jesus is in their room, I don’t kneel down to worship wherever he believes the image to be.  If someone asks me how to get rid of their allergies, I’m more likely to recommend Benadryl or something similar.  I am a product and subscriber to the religion of science, but I also keep a healthy dose of skepticism for that religion as well as my own regarding Christianity.

And I keep a healthy dose of skepticism for science as well.  There are certain fringe theories which are unsupported that certain scientists propose and work toward even now that I have misgivings about (theoretical physics for one).

When faith, in either science or the paranormal, blinds you to the possibility of other things than indeed the argument is pointless.

Again, I am not blinded to the possibility of the paranormal.  I challenge you to find a single quote of me saying that the paranormal is impossible.  You won't.

Why can't those who argue against me stop stating blatantly untrue things about my position?

If you'd bother to read what I write you would've seen this:

Note, no where have I said that paranormality is impossible.  I said it's improbable.

[Serephino]

See, you implied that I believe I should pray for a car accident victim and believe that will fix everything.  You're saying Askie isn't educated in global warming.  That's called tearing down the opposition to make yourself look smarter and right. 

I'll pull one of your tricks here; show me where I said I truly believed prayer would cure car accident victims, or cancer, or anything like that, and wasn't being sarcastic.

And yes, science is now finding out that home remedies do work because of vitamins and stuff.  But they're just catching up.  These remedies existed long before science. 

But I'm done here.  You are very careful in what you say so that you can twist everything and prove yourself right while belittling those who don't agree with you.

So what if I believe in ghosts?  I'm allowed.  It doesn't make me crazy or stupid.   

[Kate]

Askie - Im glad you have joined this thread I hope you stay with it for a while
and see though some of the passion here ..

*

The fact of the matter is, science is an open body.  Anyone who agrees to the terms can do science, and the terms simply rule out human error.  If you want to gather evidence of paranormality and present it, you can do so.  All you have to do is follow the criteria and present your findings.  People who try to do this fail, because they cannot find the evidence to be presented.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this:  because sufficient evidence cannot be found, it is unlikely that paranormality is not a genuine phenomenon or science is flawed.

Paranormality proponents first try the process and it fails, then they throw it away because it doesn't give them the result they wanted.  This speaks volumes; it says that their mind is already made up before they even began the investigation and they were simply looking for a way to justify their belief. - J

Oh Jude lol. You believe that those that are "pro-paranormal" start off chosing
to have faith in its existance first then ingnore science's explainations of a phenomena.
With "faith" in existing science (Which is what your claiming) being an explaination to app paranormal phenomena you do come over as someone that choose "faith in science explaining everything" and then ignoring evidence otherwise.

To some exent its sciences failing they have not got to the bottom of all of it - its sciencs ROLE to explain everything - it fails when it doesn't. Its the paranormals "role" to prove its repeatability for conditions where exicisting scientists with their tools can capture it before they are very real experiences to many civilians.- "false memories" do not account for 100 percent of phenomna ... and evidence of UFOs etc are proof to many - some are not debunked, some can not be identified with non-paranormal explanations.

*

This makes your belief in paranormality a religion: i.e. not rational, but faith-based.  Which really renders all of this discussion null and void.  There's no point in tossing logic at true believers. - J

Anyone who has strong belied in a particular simulation or model of reality is "religious" or has "faith based confidence" in that model.... some scientists included, although I may add its likely most scientists would have less confidence in science than yourself.

Note, no where have I said that paranormality is impossible.  I said it's improbable.
- J

It being improbable to YOU is due to your experience.

And as I previously stated, all of those areas fail to present anything of substance, which is why claims of para-normality are not taken seriously by scientific consensus.
- J

They are taken seriously by some in the scientific community.

As for people who speak of mass hallucinations, watch the video that Silk posted.  It explains why giving a piece of anecdotal evidence as support for your hypothesis is not an admissible token of evidence. - J

A of view of "there is a scientific explaination your not looking hard enough"... is "religious" statement.

*

Ok i think having an example would refine main stances.

Crop circles

"Those "faithing" explanations of paranormal" => proof of alien-entity intelligence (not necessarily from outer space)

However some have been found to be hoaxes.

What does this mean to you J ?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I would honestly advise you to educate yourself on the matter of science at this point Jude.  To say that social science and science are not the same thing is downright insulting and ignorant.  Perhaps you feel that you can pick and choose the aspects of science you wish to believe, but I’m sorry that tends to not be the case.  The scientific method is still applied to the social sciences with requirements of data and scrutiny observed.

As for IQ, I am aware there are many theories regarding this concept.  Yet the SAT, ACT, MCAT, aptitude tests, special placement studies, determination of mental retardation, etc. etc are all based on this concept.  The ideas of standardized tests are based on the concept of the IQ test being able to test a person’s mental acuity and intelligence regardless of background.  Countries across the world use this concept in order to screen children for a variety of opportunities and areas.  So while the basic premise of these things is not even understood, science still says to keep using it.

I am going to assume that your refuting of therapeutic touch is by Emily Rosa in 1996 who refuted the notion of mystical energy fields.  That is not the therapeutic touch that nurses advocate using with their patients and the fact that you confused the two has me nearly falling on the ground with laughter.  Therapeutic Touch as used by medical personnel is a form of non-verbal communication in order to display sympathy and build a therapeutic relationship with that patient.  When I use that notion I am not checking for energy fields, I am trying to display sympathy and understanding. 

Nurses that believe in energy fields are outside the realm of evidence based practice as nursing does not include that notion of therapy in their practices.  Similar to a scientist believing in God, she might believe it but that doesn’t make it part of scientific acceptance.

As for your proof that science isn’t an open community, I will do my best even though you failed to prove that it is an open community.  We will take your beloved Emily Rosa, as I am guessing this would be the evidence of how open the scientific community can be.  David J. Hufford, Professor in the Department of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, remarked that those with evidence in support of this evident (energy fields) are not published due to criticisms of the investigators yet a nine-year old’s experiment with stated bias is published in a major medical journal.  Carol Wells-Federmen, a registered nurse and co-director of the Chronic Pain Management Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated that someone advocating this therapy would not even have gotten reviewed by the medical journal even though the scientific basis for both is about as equal.

Even the editor for the magazine apologized for publishing that story and admitted that five years ago it would not have been printed.  I found this all on a wiki page with about two minutes of a google search.  Did you bother to read what you were talking about before insulting the entire profession of nursing?

Also Jude, if these is a consistent inability of people to address your specific arguments then perhaps that is more your fault than theirs.

[DarklingAlice]

Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology.  Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition.  The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology.  Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner.  The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine.  This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned. 

Firstly, you are simultaneously criticizing an attack used unfairly against religion and using it unfairly against science? That is staggeringly hypocritical. The errors made by the institution should not be the measure of the beliefs of that institution. IF you actually believe that, then you should never have tried to use the mistakes that people have made when using science as an argument against it.

Secondly, it seems extreme poor judgement to try to use homosexuality as your selling point on this issue as it is something that has been horribly dealt with by all sides of this issue, everyone knows that, and it has no bearing on the validity of either side. Further, so what if homosexuality was in the DSM? Was is the operative word, that was recognized as a mistake and corrected. Of note, gender identity disorder still is in the latest edition of the DSM, and that won't stop me from going into the lab at the crack of dawn tomorrow morning and proudly working towards my goal of being a career scientist (nor will my religious sentiments and personal paranormal experiences).

I had really hoped this could be an interesting discussion but it seems to have just turned into an intractable argument, I think I am going to follow Chaotic Angels example and wash my hands of this.

*EDITED for less snark and unfair emotion*

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Darkling, I will first state that the comment was not intended as you are making use of it in your statement.  That my language skills were not adequate enough to remove this misunderstanding are my fault and I do apologize for any insult.  That was certainly not my intention.  I do not contend that people should not participate in science nor do I believe that its past mistakes mean that it offers no benefit or reason to be proud in its use.  Just as I do not contend that the Inquisition, Crusades, accusations of child molestation are reason to leave the Catholic Church or the religion of Christianity.

Homosexuality was not my “selling point.”  Simply look at the three paragraphs before that one for a list of the instances other than homosexuality.  I attempted to display a consistency of science being used as a social engine of control on those deemed inferior or outside of society.  Minorities, women, homosexuals and the impoverished were groups that I made mention of in those paragraphs.  The studies were all reflections of the predominant social view of the time, including the presence of homosexuality in the DSM.  As each group found more acceptance, with the possible exception of the impoverished, each was given a “pass” by science. 

The purpose here is to force science from the position of purity that it seemed to occupy.  That science is allowed to make its mistakes, but those are merely part of the process.  Therefore science is wrong, but then it really isn’t wrong because that’s just working forward.  Science is, much like religion, manipulated by influential figures, current events and the whims of society as any other ideology.  In essence I am attempting to draw a line of similarity between science and religion as perspectives rather than one as fact and the other as fancy.  That “was” is an operative word for you in regard to the DSM should also be considered.  Nothing changed scientifically about homosexuality to have it removed from the DSM, it was to adjust to political climate.  Meaning that a scientific text made an arbitrary decision to save its ass politically.

I am not dragging out the history of science in an effort to shame it.  I am pointing out that indeed science has been wrong in the past with dangerous consequences so should practice humility.  Indeed was someone to say that religion can only lead to good outcomes, I would similarly drudge out their background as an example of how false that statement was.  This statement was to not allow an escape by the opposing side by splitting the reality of science with the vaulted notion of science.  To split institution from practice as it were.  Both are reflections on one another and if one side can be tarnished by this argument than so can the other.

I hope this does something to clear up the misunderstanding.  Likewise I do hope you will participate further and accept my apologies for any offense I may have caused.

[Saerrael]

I haven't read all of this, too many walls of text.

My two cents ; the paranormal will not ever be fully excepted by science, for it doesn't fall into it and you need parameters outside of science to messure it.

I could give examples and spam your screen with a nice contribution to this discussion, but I have allready seen this type of discussion before. And, after about, oh I'd say two decades, of defending my point of view on something that can not be proved, I rest my case and leave it to those still willing to fight this fight.

[DarklingAlice]

Homosexuality was not my “selling point.”  Simply look at the three paragraphs before that one for a list of the instances other than homosexuality.  I attempted to display a consistency of science being used as a social engine of control on those deemed inferior or outside of society.  Minorities, women, homosexuals and the impoverished were groups that I made mention of in those paragraphs.  The studies were all reflections of the predominant social view of the time, including the presence of homosexuality in the DSM.  As each group found more acceptance, with the possible exception of the impoverished, each was given a “pass” by science.

The purpose here is to force science from the position of purity that it seemed to occupy.  That science is allowed to make its mistakes, but those are merely part of the process.  Therefore science is wrong, but then it really isn’t wrong because that’s just working forward.  Science is, much like religion, manipulated by influential figures, current events and the whims of society as any other ideology.  In essence I am attempting to draw a line of similarity between science and religion as perspectives rather than one as fact and the other as fancy.  That “was” is an operative word for you in regard to the DSM should also be considered.  Nothing changed scientifically about homosexuality to have it removed from the DSM, it was to adjust to political climate.  Meaning that a scientific text made an arbitrary decision to save its ass politically.

It is not science making a mistake in the DSM example it is individual scientists influenced by politics (the very fact that nothing changed about homosexuality shows that this decision had to be void of scientific reasoning). By the same token I wouldn't say that religion was making mistakes in the crusades. Our concepts of both science and religion are constantly changing, and I afraid I just don't see science as getting this free pass that religion doesn't. Sure no one has forgotten the crusades, but by the same token no one forgets Mengele. The history of both science and religion is littered with cautionary tales of what can happen when good ideals fall into the hands of the manipulative.

My problem stems from the fact that these things you point out are not inherent consequences of science. And those using science to perpetrate acts of discrimination could just as easily use religion to exactly the same end, as their agenda and methods rely on improper use of both (or vice versa, many horrible things perpetrated in the name of religion could have been perpetrated in the name of science). Maybe it is another miscommunication but you seem to see science's exploitable nature as a black mark against it, and I presume you would see the same in the way religion can be exploited. One the other hand, I see such misuses as irrelevant in a discussion of either science or religion. They are regrettable, but in the end do not seem to me to speak to the character of either field, but rather the character of those people misusing said field.

I hope this does something to clear up the misunderstanding.  Likewise I do hope you will participate further and accept my apologies for any offense I may have caused.

I must also apologize. I think I was a bit too overemotional when I made that post. The reason I checked back into this thread was actually to edit it. I realized that the content of it made it seem like my major problems with this thread were either in your arguments or with you personally and I want to assure you that is not the case. This is just a topic I was following hoping for an interesting discussion and it seems to have turned into a rather heated debate (and a rather heated science vs. religion debate instead of a general paranormal vs. skepticism debate), and worst of all a dogmatic debate in which I am not sure there will be any progress made as each side appears well entrenched.

[Silk]

I really suggest that people look more into the work on QualiaSoup or theraminTrees on youtube because I don't have the time to go through everything in this thread and I respect these two greatly.

[Jude]

I would honestly advise you to educate yourself on the matter of science at this point Jude.  To say that social science and science are not the same thing is downright insulting and ignorant.  Perhaps you feel that you can pick and choose the aspects of science you wish to believe, but I’m sorry that tends to not be the case.  The scientific method is still applied to the social sciences with requirements of data and scrutiny observed.

There are differences in hard science vs. social science.  You can start here if you want to learn about them:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science

Much of what you said in that quote is blatantly untrue as you'll see.

As for IQ, I am aware there are many theories regarding this concept.  Yet the SAT, ACT, MCAT, aptitude tests, special placement studies, determination of mental retardation, etc. etc are all based on this concept.  The ideas of standardized tests are based on the concept of the IQ test being able to test a person’s mental acuity and intelligence regardless of background.  Countries across the world use this concept in order to screen children for a variety of opportunities and areas.  So while the basic premise of these things is not even understood, science still says to keep using it.

Science says?  Not at all.  Political and business institutions choose to employ it, ignoring the problems with it.  There are many cases where political and business institutions employ flawed science in the process.  But again you're only picking instances of soft science, and paranormality is a hard science issue, not a soft science issue.

I am going to assume that your refuting of therapeutic touch is by Emily Rosa in 1996 who refuted the notion of mystical energy fields.  That is not the therapeutic touch that nurses advocate using with their patients and the fact that you confused the two has me nearly falling on the ground with laughter.  Therapeutic Touch as used by medical personnel is a form of non-verbal communication in order to display sympathy and build a therapeutic relationship with that patient.  When I use that notion I am not checking for energy fields, I am trying to display sympathy and understanding.

Nurses that believe in energy fields are outside the realm of evidence based practice as nursing does not include that notion of therapy in their practices.  Similar to a scientist believing in God, she might believe it but that doesn’t make it part of scientific acceptance.

Just because you have your own separate definition of it doesn't change what it actually is taken to be and understood as by the majority of practitioners.  Look it up; that energy BS is the norm, not the exception.

As for your proof that science isn’t an open community, I will do my best even though you failed to prove that it is an open community.  We will take your beloved Emily Rosa, as I am guessing this would be the evidence of how open the scientific community can be.  David J. Hufford, Professor in the Department of Humanities at the Penn State College of Medicine, remarked that those with evidence in support of this evident (energy fields) are not published due to criticisms of the investigators yet a nine-year old’s experiment with stated bias is published in a major medical journal.  Carol Wells-Federmen, a registered nurse and co-director of the Chronic Pain Management Program at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, stated that someone advocating this therapy would not even have gotten reviewed by the medical journal even though the scientific basis for both is about as equal.

"Energy fields" used in such a way is absolutely ridiculous.  It means nothing.  The two clearly are not of equal plausibility because the concept of an energy field in such a way is absolutely at odds with all of modern physics.

All practictioners of psuedo science should start by educating themselves on what energy is to begin with.  Every time I hear the term used incorrect I want to puke.

Even the editor for the magazine apologized for publishing that story and admitted that five years ago it would not have been printed.  I found this all on a wiki page with about two minutes of a google search.  Did you bother to read what you were talking about before insulting the entire profession of nursing?

So you did a light dusting of research on the subject and now you're an expert.  We all know Wikipedia is written by geniuses of the field and not random people who edit pages on the internet!  ...wait.

Before you point out the fact that I used a Wiki link as well, keep in mind I chose to do it on a subject that was non-controversial and I said start there.

Also Jude, if these is a consistent inability of people to address your specific arguments then perhaps that is more your fault than theirs.

Yes, because those arguing against me can't seem to refute me without twisting what I'm saying, it's clearly my fault.

The only thing I see going on is one person, from a scientific, logical point of view claiming paranormality is unlikely and a bunch of other people saying NUH UH IT HAPPENED TO ME PERSONALLY!

Ask yourself, who's the extremist?  The person dealing in "I don't think this is the case, it's not likely" or the people insisting something is true?  And yet I am labeled as the close-minded one.

I too am done with this thread.  What's the point in debating with people who have an axe to grind against science (while relying on the fruit of its efforts none the less) and have had airtight personal experiences which verify the existence of the paranormal?

[HairyHeretic]

Alright folks, time to put down the keyboards and chill for a little while.

[Avi]

I have a feeling this discussion has moved into realms which I cannot speak intelligently about.  However, I would just like to add my two cents, if I may.  I would like to think of myself as a rational person.  I look for logical reasons for phenomena, ie. if my house creaks in the night, I don't immediately go "Oh my gosh, IT'S A GHOST!!! *spaz*"  More often than not, most "paranormal" phenomena can be chalked up to natural, logical events which we just don't perceive at the time.  For example, pipes expanding or contracting because of temperature can lead to sounds of tapping or banging in the walls, or a faulty valve can cause a faucet to turn on by itself. 

However, there are instances in which there is simply no logical explanation for what occurs.  I have had a personal experience involving the movement of an object in my grandparents' house, and to this day, I still cannot find any reason for why it did so, and neither can anyone else in my family who experienced it with me.  I will be the first person to point out a logical explanation for something, if there is one.  However, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, when all logical explanations have been exhausted, the last explanation, no matter how odd, must be true.  For me, I'm a believer with a skeptical outlook.  I don't take things at face value.  Show me tangible proof of it, then I might listen to you.  Hearsay and personal experiences are not enough to prove the paranormal.

[Kate]

Logical explanation

Person 1 : "20 minutes ago it wasn't there that means we are not alone"
Person 2 : "Your mean some non-human entity made it ? That isn't logical, its more like wind or strange electromagnetic fiends of the earth or something or some force science hasn't discovered yet

Person 1:"Science has discovered it - here it is ... new force ? Yes that on another intelligence.

Person 2: "20 minutes ? Why should I beleive such a claim ? It may have been there before but with false-memories you may not have "seen it" when you looked 20 minutes ago ... your recall of it being there or not 20 minutes ago isnt science man it isn't proof"

Person 1: "Is you experiencing it here with me now proof its here now ? Lets take a photo and walk away in case its a local effect on our brains ... Hmm the photo shows it...

Could the view of the photo be re-triggering a hypnotic suggested false-memory again and we just see what we want to see where really the photo is blank... or something "

Person 2: "Well we could put the photo through tests to see if its really showing us what we
think it is ... like ask others or put it through machines that test it and stuff ...

Person 1: But would we beleive what they say or what they show us is real ? It could be the same hypnotic effect making us experience this ... also fooling what we read on the machines or what we hear when we ask others opinions .. when they are REALLY telling us something different, we could have convinced ourselves its real dude."

Person 2: So what sense do we trust is true ?

Person 1: What do you have faith in being true ...

Person 2: I have faith in science man.

Person 1: You mean you have recall of an experience that science explained
and you adopted it as a method for explaining your experiences ..

Person 2: Um Yeah.

Person 1: But your trust of that recall ... this "science thing" is a memory of that being true  ... a memory not proven by science ! It could be THOSE memorys of science working ... were false ones...

Person 2: But there were so many of them ...

Person 1: Where is the proof of that man ?

Person 2: Hmm... your right... I guess its my perspective I trust - and I look for reasons to justify it which for some reason ... I feel are reasons that should be valued by others ... weird.

Person 1: IF we are victums of some Hypnosis or effect or not ... couldn't reality be what we experience as real ? that is real to us ? Does anything else matter ? We could be in a coma halucinating all of our lives and its just one big dream right ? So ... nothing can prove something is real - but what we .... experience ... is something science tries to explain, sometimes it fails, when it does we call such experiences not normal.

..... Paranormal Experiences.

Do they exist ? Some beleive they do and take photos to prove it to others when they can ... like photos of crop circles (that are still there ... physical .. "proof" to those trusting certain senses)

That is as strong a proof as one can hope for.... other than a paranormal experience themselves.

[Kurzyk]

Paranormal? The best answer I could give is I don't know.

There is still so much to existence we don't understand. A true scientist would respond with 'I don't know.' and continue through scientific method, to plod their way using the tools available to them with mathematics, observation and an open mind as their guide.

We could argue back and forth about its existence, and there are arguments for and against. From a scientific standpoint, the paranormal falls under pseudo-science, because any attempts at fitting paranormal activity into scientific method hasn't been conclusive and in some cases results were fraudulent.

But any scientist worth their merit would always keep an open mind. Science is not about establishment thinking, but about asking questions and refining as new information becomes available. As long as we move forward properly, with scientific method, then anything is possible.

Who knows maybe Einstein's belief in 'Spinoza's god' will prove to be how things are and that maybe thought/consciousness is connected to reality on quantum levels such that manifestations like telekinesis, telepathy and all that stuff becomes possible.

Maybe a thousand years from now as we're flying around in energy states, we'll look back at the 'primitive' days of the 21st century and wonder how they survived without the technology and scientific advances of the year 3010.

*laughs* Who knows. But hey, take a lighter back to the 12th century and see how quickly people think its supernatural or paranormal. He lights fire from his hands! He must be a witch! Burn him!

[MercyfulFate]

I fully believe paranormal things happen, and it irks me when people dismiss it and say it's not even possible.

[Silk]

It is not down to me that it does not exist, it is down to you to prove to me that it does.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Not sure how that rule comes about.

[Kate]

Silk ... remember science's role is to explain reality.

Its not a ghosts role to usher science updating itself so itself can be proven
real to the majority of the scientific community - it MIGHt be but science is the one claiming it explains reality (until a universal theory of everything is found and proven - effectively nothing is proven by science ... all there are are growing sets of phenomena that can be explained by science)

this forum is not for one side to convince the other is right but if it was
Then perhaps silk its up to you to prove to us that they are not real.

Are not "valid" experiences, that crop circles are made by man (even though they have no footsteps leading towards them or away and are made in 20 minutes ... and even the weaving within a "plain area" is ridiculously complex, oh and the storks are hit with something like microwave energy that makes them buckle in a certain way ... and that it changes the soil and electromagnetic properties of the area (which phyiscal tools can show to be generally "true" - if one trusts their own tests ... and do not lump the tests themselves as "under the effect of delusional memories").

[Kate]

(If it was my role to prove to silk and J that they do exist)...

I would go with crop circles.

[Silk]

So because something doesn't currently have a explanation means that it was done by something paranormal? Contradiction much

Unknown cause = Paranormal
I cannot explain something = therefore I can explain it.

The reason why you have to prove its true is because there is currently no proof of paranormal events, just unexplained ones, all your doing is changing "unknown occurrence" with "Paranormal"

Remember that a UFO does not necessarily mean alien spaceship its just a unknown flying object, its name is alot more diverse than people give credit for.

[Kate]

i think the disagreement you and i share silk is that one on definitions.

Some beleive that the ufo phenomena is not due to anything other than something already explained by current science.

Some beleive they are real (ie not strange cloud formations) but do not beleive they are aliens.

Some beleive they are aliens.

Paranormal I beleive is something that the majority of the scientific culture believes is not true.

Some UFO's = Aliens is something that most of science does not agree with formally (they may privately but being so formally is killing their own career).

Same with "ghost" = "disembodied intellect abilties"  (not necessarily by one that is dead).

Remote viewing = Not true abilities to the current stream of science.

Same with crop circles = act of alien intelligence (Not true abilities to the current stream of science)

Will science theroy's expand to explain ALL of this ?

Perhaps... but phenomena that science beleives is due to psychic abilities or intelligent alien minds = Paranormal

This is diffierent to unknown cause = paranormal.

If you go home and find your TV not working - you have an unknown cause, it may be due to a
electical fault, a fuse, something mundane... all signs prove that its likely due to something science can easily explain - no need for paranormal stuff.

IF you go home and see your TV unplugged from the wall but it has a white dot in the middle, ok ... weird but capacitors do exist, stored energy exists in the tv, some magnetic field fluctuations could trigger some power to discharge to illuminate the light without power from the mains ... fair enough.

If you go home and see your TV unplugged from the wall and showing the face of something
that has eyes which seem to be following you.... then it starts trying to talk to you.... hmm ok
you may be experiencing a delusion and it could be a memory mis-firing or some psychotic effect.

If three others claim the same to an external party and they didn't talk before hand, or if another says it happened to them BEFORE you told them it happened to you to anyone ...
then ... then you start thinking that perhaps .. perhaps ... what is MORE likely now is a cause that is ...

Para-normal.

[Cythieus]

Let's not forget, things in science often seem stranger than the idea of some paranormal stuff. Quantum Physics for instance is pretty crazy and if you were to tell some people what can happen with sub atomic particles, they might call you crazy.

[Kate]

like "spooky action at a distance"... in the quantum world.

Para-normal causes IS "the normal".

[Avi]

Paranormal:  Outside normal.  Technically, if I was walking down the street and all of a sudden, a giant duck float rolled by, I could call that a paranormal experience.  ;)

[Cythieus]

Yeah I don't like to say that the Paranormal is necessarily Supernatural.

[Avi]

Yeah I don't like to say that the Paranormal is necessarily Supernatural.

Yes, I classify ghosts, demons, exorcisms, etc. under "Supernatural", since supernatural means "Beyond the natural", which is a better definition than paranormal.

[Kate]

so remote viewing would be paranormal but not supernatural

[Cythieus]

so remote viewing would be paranormal but not supernatural

It might depend on the source, if this guys Death and return to life caused it...it might be either.

[MercyfulFate]

It is not down to me that it does not exist, it is down to you to prove to me that it does.

Problem is, even if something paranormal appeared right in front of most of the "lalala can't hear you!" skeptics, they would say it wasn't real, regardless.

There are numerous pictures, recording and videos of paranormal things that have not been debunked or disproved. The brown lady of Raynam Hall(Sp?) was one such picture for example. Or the Tombstone picture in the cemetery, etc.

However if you refuse to believe it can happen, nothing I could show you would matter. I've experienced some truly odd stuff, and had some strange audio recordings even that changed my mind on the subject years back.

[Silk]

Problem is, even if something paranormal appeared right in front of most of the "lalala can't hear you!" skeptics, they would say it wasn't real, regardless.

Trust me hun, the skeptics have been on the receiving end of that for a long time when it comes to religous debates, but from this side any true open mided skeptic would take into regard any evidence given

[Cythieus]

Trust me hun, the skeptics have been on the receiving end of that for a long time when it comes to religous debates, but from this side any true open mided skeptic would take into regard any evidence given

Two totally different things. Religion is about faith. But many people claim to have seen and met aliens or ghosts or other things, some of them with scientific explanations and they are met with that kind of skepticism.

[Kate]

the reason why religion appears with the paranormal is unlike mainstream science it attempts to acknowledge them as valid experiences and also attempts to explain them.

[Silk]

I do find it funny how you guys seem to think that science is openly discrediting the paranormal and supernatural, as if it doesn't fit into their littlebox of existence, when science would be more than Happy to hear about these events, IF there was some evidence that it happened, anecdotal evidence is not enough to sway the scientific community, which is normally the most anyone is able to bring up regarding these situations.

Science admits it does not have all the answers and will openly say it does not have a answer for X at this time. It is this sort of thing that tries to make the answers for themselves, which is ultimately detrimental to society, because we can and will not expand our understanding of the world if we just say "aw it was ghosts/aliens/god/flying spaghetti monster"
because we will be no closer to the real answer which is found by testing and evidence, we now know that earthquakes are caused by tectonic shifts and not the wrath of god.

We allways have to be careful in this day and age because with our level of technology its easier and easier to hoax such things like ghost sightings. If I was to put a loud booming voice in a Church's rigged up sound system and speak through it, how many people would think it is the word of god talking to them?

[Kate]

silk....

I see where your comming from ie science is interested in strange phenomena and is interested in the unexplained, however mainstream science doesn't like things that hint at the plausibility of existing phenomena implying aliens or disembodied intelligences.

There are things they can study - crop circles, yes some are hoaxes.

Some are not. Crop circles are linked with aliens culturally, being involved with them is almost suicide for the career of a scientist.

[Silk]

Investigating them is not career suicide, if there is reason to suspect there may be something behind them that is not explainable, its people jumping to the conclusion that crop circle = alien that is career suicide

[Saerrael]

Investigating them is not career suicide, if there is reason to suspect there may be something behind them that is not explainable, its people jumping to the conclusion that crop circle = alien that is career suicide

Personally, I do wonder. Would the world end if these were not made my aliens ? Oh, I don't mean the hoax ones, forgive me.. But why conclude that every crop circle is either a hoax or from alien origin?
And I have nothing against sceptics, nor science attempting to study that what is yet unexplained. More growth in knowledge should really be our goal, not bickering amongst ourselves if X is actually Y.
If science can live with the 'floaty people' and the floaty people can live with the sceptics attempting to either prove or pop the dreambubble, it would all be so much easier..

[Inkidu]

Investigating them is not career suicide, if there is reason to suspect there may be something behind them that is not explainable, its people jumping to the conclusion that crop circle = alien that is career suicide

God no. So many people do it nowadays it's practically mainstream. Though I think aliens do it just to fuck with us.

"Hey Geeborp, look! No dude look. They look like Zhandags pecking around the hydroponics gardens!"
"Priceless dude."

[Kate]

I don't think people "jump" to explain it as alien intellegence.

They explore the following first

"can a helicopter make this? Or any other tool we know"
"can a bunch of organized hippies do this ?"
"Is there any fields we know of that can do this"
"Can this be a natural phenomena of the earth ? Magnetic field changes or something ?"

What has many scratching their head is the explanation that it WAS human
creates more if's and buts than the "alien" explanation.

The "they form in minutes" - is one thing that makes it really hard to associate with people being the cause, they also have been shown to some tribal American Indians that have unparalleled connection to synergy/spiritualism - and they apparently create massive emotive changes within them and are stunned others can't "get them" ... there are many things suggesting they are caused by phenomena we are not ourselves familiar with - but I agree with Saerra, camps just letting other schools of thought "do there thing" without judgment would help, the fastest way to get to understand them would be if it was tackled from many perspectives - and each perspective wasn't trying to discredit or shame the other.

One funny explanation I read was crop circles are UFO donuts or burnouts ...
like when someone immature has a new car - they make skid marks etc ... because they are being immature - effectively alien graffiti

[Le RandomBloke]

There's actually plenty of documentaries showing how they (humans) make the crop circles. Just very creative artists if you ask me. Now, I believe in 'aliens' but to go as far to say they'd come and make a few crop circles seems a bit too far fetched for me. Of course, feel free to think what you like, but I just can't see the reason why they'd do it. Unless it was in fact for the lulz, if so, I like them already. Good sense of humour gets you far!

Personally, I find it bullocks. They used to say lightning and storms were the gods getting angry, we know better now. Not to say I'm close minded, but I am sceptical nonetheless. I won't just jump to conclusions everytime something slightly out of the ordinary happens.

But yea, I saw a documentary on National Geographic about it recently, a bunch of guys making crazy crop circles rather fast.

[Kate]

How did they do the ones that don't have footprints or any tracks anywhere near them ?

[MercyfulFate]

I do find it funny how you guys seem to think that science is openly discrediting the paranormal and supernatural, as if it doesn't fit into their littlebox of existence, when science would be more than Happy to hear about these events, IF there was some evidence that it happened, anecdotal evidence is not enough to sway the scientific community, which is normally the most anyone is able to bring up regarding these situations.

Science admits it does not have all the answers and will openly say it does not have a answer for X at this time. It is this sort of thing that tries to make the answers for themselves, which is ultimately detrimental to society, because we can and will not expand our understanding of the world if we just say "aw it was ghosts/aliens/god/flying spaghetti monster"
because we will be no closer to the real answer which is found by testing and evidence, we now know that earthquakes are caused by tectonic shifts and not the wrath of god.

We allways have to be careful in this day and age because with our level of technology its easier and easier to hoax such things like ghost sightings. If I was to put a loud booming voice in a Church's rigged up sound system and speak through it, how many people would think it is the word of god talking to them?

I'm not necessarily speaking about just science and scientists, I'm speaking of skeptical people moreso.

For example: You get a distinct voice on a recorder saying something like "Go Home". If you run it through an audio program, you find it's at a level lower than human hearing can pick up.

Could it be random radio waves? Maybe. However most skeptics who do the "lalala can't hear you" say that because it could possibly be radio waves, that's what it has to be. Even if the voice on the tape is a direct situational response to what you say, or something of the like.

Or if you show them a picture that's been proven to be real and could not have been faked, they will say it was faked, even if that's not possible at all.

I personally believe there are scientific explanations to paranormal things. I mean people are currently developing invisibility cloaks, something that would have been dismissed as insane a hundred years ago. There's also mind control projects in the works, artificial intelligence, weather control and a whole bunch of stuff most people would think is beyond anything we can do.

[Silk]

How did they do the ones that don't have footprints or any tracks anywhere near them ?

Without independent access to the situation in question, how can you expect me to give you a answer? Remember that Video I showed and the example used on that? If I had access I could give you a answer but otherwise how can you expect one. That is like saying "OK I hid a brown box in this room, you must guess where it is, but your not allowed to see inside the room at all"

[Kate]

It was directed at the person that said "there are plenty of docos that show how they are made by people"

I'm sure doing a documentary of how to do some of the hoaxes would explain all crop circle phenomena .... to some.

No one is preventing the scientists to "inside the room Silk" ... some scientists are trying.

[Silk]

Just pointing out the "OK explain this one to me" Doesn't cut it in actual debate, because unless said person has been there, gathered his own evidence and come up with his theories for that one, it is never going to amount to much saying what it is unless it has been outright prove, because otherwise it is passed by word of mouth, and things could have been missed or edited out, or exaggerated over time.

It is fruitless to ask someone to explain if they have not been given the chance to make their explanation first hand, otherwise your just listening to someone Else's explanation from a repeated process. Which again is fruitless because although someone may not be able to explain something, does not make it unexplainable.

[Kate]

Silk :)

I was addressing this ..

"There's actually plenty of documentaries showing how they (humans) make the crop circles. "
- RandomClown

Ie he believed they explained crop circles.