Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

[JayUtah]

confirmation bias can influence how we interpret evidence, while the sagan standard can affect what we consider to be sufficient evidence for a claim

Asked and answered. You can't meet an ordinary standard of evidence. It's pointless to quibble over whether you can meet a higher one.

 

[JayUtah]

Sufficient evidence is key: Any claim, regardless of how extraordinary it may seem, only requires sufficient evidence to warrant belief the focus should be on the quality and reliability of evidence, not its perceived extraordinariness.

Asked and answered. We have examined the quality and reliability of your evidence and we have explained why it is insufficient—often at length. Now kindly stop annoying the other people here with your repetitious AI-fueled rage against Carl Sagan. You can only get so much mileage out of the standard rebuttals to Sagan's remarks. At a certain point you need evidence, not complaints.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Supplying any evidence would be a start.

So far you haven't even reached that basic hurdle.

Must try harder.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Supplying any evidence would be a start.

So far you haven't even reached that basic hurdle.

Must try harder.

That's the thing, I don't think there is a try harder. I think between Calderaro and Scorpion we've seen the best that can be argued -- they've given their A game.

Ultimately, they're asking too much of these experiences, demanding of them an external reality. There's no A game there.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Calderaro, people on this forum have given you a lot of time & attention and had very little engagement back. How about you reassure us that you're not just another seagull poster by answering a really basic question?

Since you introduce introduced this hypothesis (it certainly isn't a theory), what do YOU understand the terms "Microtubules" and "Quantum Information" to mean and how do they relate to each other and/or interact?

So Caldera, now you're back are you going to answer this very, very basic question about the hypothesis YOU introduced and show us that you actually understand what you're posting and aren't just copying and pasting things to waste our time?

 

[Calderaro]

Calderaro, congratulations on your continuing efforts to discuss spirits in this hostile environment. I have been through it all before myself and I know how difficult it is to get a point across to confirmed skeptics. You are not the only one here who knows there is a spirit world from personal experience. I attended spiritualist churches and went to trance lectures at the spiritualist association in London through most of the the 1970s.
I had many messages from my departed relatives including a brother who I did not know had existed until I got a message from him. My mother had never told me of his existence until I asked her about it after getting a message from him. But people here discount such personal evidence as just anecdotes.

How to refute pseudoskepticism in the case of the existence of spirits?
To refute pseudoskepticism regarding the existence of spirits, it can be argued that the traditional requirement for scientific proof may be inadequate for phenomena that, by their nature, are not easily reproducible in the laboratory
Limitations of science: Science, as classically defined, requires a subject matter, a language, and a method. Pseudoskepticism often invokes the authority of science to disqualify claims that do not align with its beliefs, but the opinions of scientists should not be taken as authority outside their specialty. Nature of phenomena: Psychic or spiritual phenomena may require special conditions to occur and cannot be reproduced in the laboratory. Non-reproducibility should not be a reason to deny their existence.
What is pseudoskepticism: Pseudoskepticism can manifest itself in the a priori rejection of claims without rigorous investigation, adopting scientific explanations in a dogmatic way and disregarding subjective experiences and the possibility of phenomena not yet understoodEpistemic basis: Belief systems can arise from the need to fill cognitive gaps, resorting to imaginary explanations. The distinction between the "existent" (verifiable and independent of the observer) and the "non-existent" (restricted to a belief system) is fundamentalGenuine skepticism: True skepticism involves rigorous investigation, without rejecting any claims a priori, and considering all evidence and possibilities before reaching a definitive conclusion

https://www.perplexity.ai/

 

[Thermal]

The debate is over!

Big hand for Calderaro, everyone!

 

[Calderaro]

So Caldera, now you're back are you going to answer this very, very basic question about the hypothesis YOU introduced and show us that you actually understand what you're posting and aren't just copying and pasting things to waste our time?

I think it is evidence of the existence of life after death! I still can't answer your questionYOU use the fallacy of extraordinary evidence!

 

[Calderaro]

Big hand for Calderaro, everyone!

Round of applause for Marcello Truzzi!

 

[JayUtah]

How to refute pseudoskepticism in the case of the existence of spirits?

Calling the criticism of your claims "pseudoskepticism" begs the question and is rather insulting.

To refute pseudoskepticism regarding the existence of spirits, it can be argued that the traditional requirement for scientific proof may be inadequate for phenomena that, by their nature, are not easily reproducible in the laboratory

This is not some profound statement, but is merely the excuse given by self-proclaimed spiritualists when their claims cannot be reproduced under controlled conditions. Your AI is not giving you special insight; it's just regurgitating training that includes bad arguments made by desperate claimants. Further, we covered this already. The people who are trying to prove spiritualism by scientific means already concede that the effects they hope to study are scientifically measurable.

Limitations of science: Science, as classically defined, requires a subject matter, a language, and a method. Pseudoskepticism often invokes the authority of science to disqualify claims that do not align with its beliefs...

Again, this is just the same bad arguments made by claimants who want to shift the argument to one of ideology, not evidence.

Nature of phenomena: Psychic or spiritual phenomena may require special conditions to occur and cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.

Asked and answered.

What is pseudoskepticism

Your ability to get a computer program to spit out a definition of pseudoskepticism is not proof that your critics are pseudoskeptics.

True skepticism involves rigorous investigation, without rejecting any claims a priori, and considering all evidence and possibilities before reaching a definitive conclusion

That's what your critics have been doing in this thread. v Your claims were not rejected a priori. Your proffered evidence, such as it is, has been thoroughly discussed. You almost always ignore those discussions in favor of some new AI-generated blurb.

 

[JayUtah]

I think it is evidence of the existence of life after death!

And your opinion would carry some weight if you could actually explain what you think your source says. Right now you seem to be in the stage of noting that some people used some big words. That doesn't actually constitute a proof.

I still can't answer your question

And that's the problem. You don't seem to understand what your source claims, so your claim that it supports your conclusion is suspect.

YOU use the fallacy of extraordinary evidence!

No.

Asking you to lay out an argument that goes from the premises in your source to the conclusions you wish to draw from it is not asking for extraordinary evidence. You don't get to trot out that old canard every time you beg the question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Non-reproducibility should not be a reason to deny their existence.

And likewise ghost stories should not be the reason to accept their existence.

All your stuff about "pseudoskepticism" is a waste of time, since that is not the problem you face here: You want to convince us spirits are real. That is not the same task as persuading us we should not claim spirits are provably not real.

Your failure is that you don't believe skeptics are real.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think it is evidence of the existence of life after death! I still can't answer your questionYOU use the fallacy of extraordinary evidence!

Do not lie about me, I've actually spoken against the idea of 'extraordinary evidence' in this very thread if you'd bothered to read it. I'm asking you to explain words that YOU have used, that isn't extraordinary, it's the most basic evidence that you understand what you're posting and aren't copying and pasting someone else's meaningless ramblings without a clue what they mean.

Answer the question.

 

[steenkh]

YOU use the fallacy of extraordinary evidence!

Do you think it is an extraordinary demand that fraud and bias should not be present in the evidence?

 

[Mojo]

Do you think it is an extraordinary demand that fraud and bias should not be present in the evidence?

What else do they have?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

What else do they have?

Big words they don't understand and don't have the sense to look up.

 

[arthwollipot]

What else do they have?

They have their subjective experience, which by definition is non-repeatable and non-shareable. For some, that's all the evidence they need.

 

[Calderaro]

Do you think it is an extraordinary demand that fraud and bias should not be present in the evidence?

What makes this claim extraordinary? And what would be the standard of evidence that you consider appropriate?

 

[Calderaro]

They have their subjective experience, which by definition is non-repeatable and non-shareable. For some, that's all the evidence they need

Are you demanding extraordinary evidence because the claim is truly extraordinary, or because you have already decided not to believe it?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What makes this claim extraordinary?

Which claim was called extraordinary? It looks as if you did not understand the post you replied to. Or perhaps that you have decided to use a strawman argument.