There is never enough evidence for what you don't believe in. What is evidence?

[SlayerofCliffracers]

The more I analyse the basic thinking process of so-called Skeptics here and elsewhere the more I am convinced that the principle driving pretty much all of them is this.

There is never enough evidence for what you don't believe in

When offered evidence against something, Skeptics grab it up and declare that it is final proof that 'Science' is on their side. While when faced with accounts or even experiments that contradict this something, they are notable for 'raising the bar'. Demanding even more evidence in order to believe something or demanding an even higher standard of evidence.

That's why for the most part us 'superstitious' folk generally know that it is worthless to waste evidence on such people, since to be very honest if you got evidence to support your beliefs, they would soon enough demand an even higher standard of evidence.

Because what is evidence?

If I have seen Ghosts then I have evidence enough to know Ghosts are real. I have evidence for the existance of Ghost. Asking even for me to photograph the Ghosts is an unreasonable statement, given that it requires me to be in control of the Ghost appearance enough to be ready with a camera.

And if you do manage to take a camera photo or even a film of a Ghost, then it is immediately cried that it is faked. So if you get the higher standard of evidence, then you turn around and demand an even higher standard of evidence, that you couldn't have faked it.

Of course ironically given the ridiculously high standard of evidence required, they are setting themselves up to 'prove' their own original standard. Because the sheer probability of being able to collect that high standard of evidence, means that fakery dominates statistically, because fake evidence is always good evidence, faking murky evidence is pointless.

By increasing your evidential bar, you make it harder for anyone to find the evidence you need except by faking it. This in turn confirms your initial Skepticism. It's all self-reinforcing closemindedness really.

Even if you see Ghosts this doesn't mean Ghosts are real if accepted, means that ultimately you reject Scientific Evidence out of your excessive Paranoia. If you don't trust your own eyes not to lie to you then you ultimately cannot trust any Evidence whatsoever that has sensory basis.

You aren't Scientific, what you are really is a Dogmatist. You have decided that Ghosts don't exist. Therefore if even you see a Ghost, then your eyes must be lying to you. Dogma comes first and if evidence contradicts dogma then evidence is false.

Extraordinery claims require extraordinery evidence, but who decides what is extraordinery

This is one of the most quoted justifications for basically everything I just described. The problem is that what is extraordinery is not a valid standard, because what ordinery is entirely subjective, things that would seem highly extraordinery yesterday (like mobile phones) are quite pedestrian today.

Ultimately what is expressed is ultimately a power relationship. We the powerful one's shall dictate what is ordinery and what is extraordinery. The purpose of this is to defend the dominant worldview, because those doing the judging must fit everything into this worldview or stand to lose power.

A perfect example of this would be Anti-Astrology. Astrology must be false, because there are only 4 general forces in the universe (I think it was 4) was once quoted on a Skeptical website against Astrology.

The utter idiocy of this statement is based upon the fact that if something cannot fix inside the box, rational people make the box a lot better. If people cannot explain Astrology using the established forces, then why not add however many new forces are needed to explain Astrology.

It is of no consequence or significance to whether Astrology is bunk or not, as to whether it could be explained using the Scientific Laws. But it is of great consequence to the established Scientists that their Scientific Laws are taken as final and absolute. Power is at stake here.

Much the same situations arise internally within Astrology amusingly enough. Astrology has it's own Scientific Laws and all evidence must be made to fit the Laws.

This comes to the very heart of the matter. The problem is that people accept 'Science' or rather a philosophical worldview that must to secure it's position claim to be Scientific, one they accept in much the same way that Fundermentalists accept a Religion.

Just because you can't catch something doesn't mean it isn't real

However Skepticism is larger than any particular single Philosophy. That is to say, it can like Religion/Superstition be seen as representing particular human drives and fears that are ancient.

The basic unifying principle between all the Paranormal phenonoma is that they are somewhat ellusive. They can't be prodded with a stick unto the satisfaction of the researcher.

Ghosts for instance don't stick around, they appear and then disappear usually rather rapidly. This corresponds with the general properties of the object as already established. Nobody ever claimed otherwise. One cannot logically conclude the non-existance of something for not violating it's own identified properties.

What as at stake is power and control. People live in a world that they have little control over. This world must be made predictable and controllable in order to make people feel secure. Essentially both sides of the Skeptic/Occultist coin are really differential paths taken by the same basic drive/fear.

Some people seek to control what they do not understand by eliminating it from their consciousness while others seek to control what they do not understand by understanding.

The man who doesn't believe in ghosts and the man that attempts to understand the rules that govern ghosts is ultimately governed by the same basic fear of ghosts.

The real question is therefore why are the ghosts scary?.

 

[technoextreme]

A perfect example of this would be Anti-Astrology. Astrology must be false, because there are only 4 general forces in the universe (I think it was 4) was once quoted on a Skeptical website against Astrology.

The utter idiocy of this statement is based upon the fact that if something cannot fix inside the box, rational people make the box a lot better. If people cannot explain Astrology using the established forces, then why not add however many new forces are needed to explain Astrology.

Oooo yes. Lets make up stupid stuff to explain a phenomeon that for all intents and purposes doesn't work. Let's ignore the fact that every single Astrologer is using the wrong sign because of the established fact that the stars were not in the same spot 2000 years ago than they are today.

 

[Ashles]

Ghosts are not scary if you don't believe in ghosts. I am no more scared of ghosts than I am of the kids in The Innocents or the Event Horizon ship (in the sense that none of these in my opinion is actually real).
I don't have to believe something is real to have a real emotional response to its description.

The unknown and the dark are scary for very good evolutionary reasons.

Our imagination is powerful in putting formless threats in our ebnvironment. Again for very good evolutionary reasons.

If I have seen Ghosts then I have evidence enough to know Ghosts are real. I have evidence for the existance of Ghost.

Your mistake is assuming your perception and memory are perfect.

You have made a number of common arguments that have been adressed on these forums countless times - not least of which is that anecdoatal evidence by itself carries no useful weight simply because people can be mistaken, misremember, lie, exaggerate etc.
Almost any paranormal claim imaginable should in theory be perfectly acceptable to objective measurement.

Yet strangely, never are.

A regular ghostly presence? Fine - seperate research groups can investigate.

People claim to have seen aliens. Very different aliens.
Are they all correct in your opinion?

Is the anecdotal evidence for Fairies, The Loch Ness Monster and Leprechauns enough to convince you?

 

[paximperium]

Well it is always interesting someone who does not know epistemology, psychology or how skeptics or people think make things up to make their nonsense seem more rational.

 

[Ashles]

A perfect example of this would be Anti-Astrology. Astrology must be false, because there are only 4 general forces in the universe (I think it was 4) was once quoted on a Skeptical website against Astrology.

And yet I suspect you will not be able to link to this site?

 

[themusicteacher]

Boy, you really caught me in my goalpost moving exercises. I sure am embarrased and wish to offer you a personal apology for being so evasive. From now on, I'll abandon all objective precepts on which I am based in favor of subjective, ideological yet always reliable anecdotes, myths, story-telling, superstition and a priori belief. Thanks for calling me out on my BS; it's about time someone did. I was beginning to get all uppity and superior but you've put me in my proper place. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to go hang with my good buddies Jesus, the Tooth Fairy and Rasputin's ghost.

Hugs and kisses,

Science

 

[Hokulele]

There are two main problems with the types of evidence you are describing here:

1) The evidence is ambiguous. Sure, a ghost sighting could be evidence for the existence of ghosts, but it can also be evidence of the existence of pareidolia, deer, teenagers running around in sheets, atmospheric effects, etc. This is why someone who is skeptical of the claim asks for further evidence with less ambiguity.

2) The evidence is extremely subjective. You may conclude that the sighting is a ghost, but a meteorologist may have a different conclusion, and a person who is raised in a culture that has different beliefs may see something else (an angel, a demon, a trickster god, or migraine headaches).

Sure, there are people who will dismiss the conclusion out of hand, but there are also people here who will work to determine if the conclusion is justified, or if it is simply a dogmatic leap in the opposite direction based on the sightee's cultural expectations.

 

[Hokulele]

And yet I suspect you will not be able to link to this site?

And here I was thinking it wasn't so much that astrology has been shown to be false, but that it has never been shown to be true...


ETA: Welcome SlayerofCliffraces. I recognize your name from various discussions with woodwater/idunno/rudeboy.

 

[Malkuth]

Dude, i know exactly where you're coming from. I wanted to make a rant kinda like that when I first joined up here too. I agree that some of the peeps here can be pretty hardcore in their 'woo-bashing' but you gotta understand, if you can't poke something with a stick, science will always say it simply isn't there. No offence science freaks, but you gotta admit that science, for all it's exploratory and open-minded proclamations, can be pretty blinkered on things that defy easy classification. And as much as you keep screaming for evidence, you know that virtually zero cash is being spent on investigation of 'the fringe', so it's terribly unlikely that any hard scientific proof of any of it that might actually be true is gonna be printed in those sacred peer-reviewed journals.

I think a lot of you guys know that I don't follow the straight and narrow party line around here on what's legit and what isn't, but I do respect what's been proven beyond doubt. I just think that it's all too easy to go too far the other way and dismiss as ridiculous the things that really can't be 'proven' with the tools science likes to use. I also hope some of you have noticed that I'm not all woo or bust either. I actually do appreciate and respect science god as far as he goes, where I differ in some respects from many is that I think there's still a hell of a lot that science can't begin to explain, but takes the default position of guilty until proven innocent on a lot of 'fringe' matters. These things are usually instead 'explained away' and subsequently mocked mercilessly, conveniently denied any real scrutiny.

I don't think it's too far-fetched to suggest that the skeptical community at large tends to take evidence that one aspect of a woo subject is bunk and projects it onto the rest of that subject, as if debunking one part of something debunks it all. I know not everyone here thinks that, but it's something I've seen more than a few times.

From that perspective, I can begin to understand why some people get a bit antsy and pissed off at those who give the fringe a little credit and don't want to write it off en masse. There's no explicit evidence for it, therefore it must be bunk. I get that absolutist point of view and I understand it's a must be, because science strives to be absolutist and can't tolerate or understand the ineffable.

That's why I can sympathise with your frustration Slayer, but I gotta tell ya, headbutting these peeps around here won't earn you any kudos. Sad but true, you're gonna have to put your viewpoints out in relatively unprovocative language and be prepared to back them up with rational discussion. More than anything, you're gonna have to be prepared to admit you might be a bit wrong on a few things.

 

[desertyeti]

The real question is therefore why are the ghosts scary?.

They're not.
Next question.

 

[desertyeti]

...but you gotta understand, if you can't poke something with a stick, science will always say it simply isn't there. No offence science freaks, but you gotta admit that science, for all it's exploratory and open-minded proclamations, can be pretty blinkered on things that defy easy classification

Not a good student in your Science 101 class were ya?
I'm reasonably certain no one has poked an atom, or black hole, or red giant, or white dwarf, or Tyrannosaurus nestling, or idea, or radio wave, or Neandertal dropping with a stick.

As for "admitting" to being blinkered. Wrong again Mal.
Rooting out the explanation for things that defy easy explanation is the very bread and butter of science. I'd suggest it's woo-fans like you who cover your eyes to what's really happening around you and prefer instead to take the easy way out.
Then again, that's just me...

 

[Belz...]

so-called Skeptics

I stopped reading here. That's woo-talk.

 

[Aepervius]

that science, for all it's exploratory and open-minded proclamations, can be pretty blinkered on things that defy easy classification. And as much as you keep screaming for evidence, you know that virtually zero cash is being spent on investigation of 'the fringe', so it's terribly unlikely that any hard scientific proof of any of it that might actually be true is gonna be printed in those sacred peer-reviewed journals.

Money is getting spent on the fringe, and a LOT was spent in the past. Look at all what was (and still is) spent on homepathy, or even ganzfeld and parapsychology, ghost hunting. The problem is that all those domain have never paid out what was invested. Once you get no result beyond anecdote , for many decenny, then YES at that point the money get less and less.

You are seeing the situation of today in a vaccuum, but you have to look at the past and see the whole picture.

As for the OP, I suspect that he got as much real evidence as I have got PIFU. Which is why since he CAN'T provide evidence, he would rather poo poo the request for evidence and purport that we use it to hide ourselves. But I can provide a list of what I would see as evidence, and what would make me reconsider some stuff considered woo. Example for homeopathy : a random double blinded experience diffferentiating pure alcohol from 50C solution on 20 sample. Example astrology : a non cold reading, non banal generality telling using birthday date/place of birth (do someone remember the name of the psychological trick used by astrologer using general banalities which apply to everybody?).

The problem is I bet you would not be able to do the same admittance : if the same test repeatidely fail, you would not be able to reconsider your belief might be misplaced.

 

[Belz...]

No offence science freaks, but you gotta admit that science, for all it's exploratory and open-minded proclamations, can be pretty blinkered on things that defy easy classification.

Which is amusing, considering how much time and money is spent on things that continue to defy easy classification. Wiki "species" and you'll understand what I mean.

And as much as you keep screaming for evidence, you know that virtually zero cash is being spent on investigation of 'the fringe'

Not anymore, anyway. Because the fringe has been explored in the past and we found nothing there but ignorance.

 

[prewitt81]

It may be unreasonable to ask one person to catch one specific incident of a supposed ghost, but is it really unreasonable in the age where cameras are everywhere (cellphones, amirite?) that not one clear-cut, undeniable mugshot has been taken of Casper?

Skepticism is about testing claims, not flatly denying them, but I must admit, given that every single supposed picture of a ghost has either been an admitted hoax or easily replicable, I take such claims with more than a grain of salt. Still yet, I'm willing to be shown evidence that stands up to scrutiny. Just because it has never happened ever in any way at all under any circumstances, doesn't mean it never will.

 

[Hokulele]

(do someone remember the name of the psychological trick used by astrologer using general banalities which apply to everybody?)

Are you thinking of the Forer effect?

 

[paximperium]

I agree that some of the peeps here can be pretty hardcore in their 'woo-bashing' but you gotta understand, if you can't poke something with a stick, science will always say it simply isn't there.

It is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Science is a method based on empiricism, replication and falsifiability. It is consistent and it works. Many scientific models do not require anything to be "poked with a stick". Evolution, Big Bang Theory, electrons etc etc etc and huge chunks of science falsify your claim.

No offence science freaks, but you gotta admit that science, for all it's exploratory and open-minded proclamations, can be pretty blinkered on things that defy easy classification.

I completely agree here. Science which has extended human life, allowed mankind into space and rapid transport does not accept blind useless and nonsensical claims that is unfalsifiable and generally useless.

And as much as you keep screaming for evidence, you know that virtually zero cash is being spent on investigation of 'the fringe', so it's terribly unlikely that any hard scientific proof of any of it that might actually be true is gonna be printed in those sacred peer-reviewed journals.

Why should any money be spent on something that has no signs of it being true? Show that there is something to study first before demanding money.

I actually do appreciate and respect science god as far as he goes, where I differ in some respects from many is that I think there's still a hell of a lot that science can't begin to explain, but takes the default position of guilty until proven innocent on a lot of 'fringe' matters.

What nonsense. Claims are rejected until shown to have merit. To do it backwards is irrational and downright ridiculous.

I get that absolutist point of view and I understand it's a must be, because science strives to be absolutist and can't tolerate or understand the ineffable.

What are you talking about? The nonsense you are espousing sounds like something you just made up. Science is based on probability. "Absolutist" (whatever the hell that is suppose to mean)is nonsense.

 

[blutoski]

There is never enough evidence for what you don't believe in

Yes, it's well accepted that the disagreement with believers is based on the fact that skeptics have different standards of evidence than they do. No revelation here.

Rephrased in Skeptical lingo: we don't believe in something that currently lacks sufficient evidence. But when sufficient evidence is provided, we will change our mind.

Skeptics believe that believers' standards of evidence are too low. I always hope we can talk about this without polemics and personal attacks. The original poster is hopefully not aware that these drive-by insults directed at skeptics does not change our minds.

 

[Ashles]

Dude, i know exactly where you're coming from. I wanted to make a rant kinda like that when I first joined up here too. I agree that some of the peeps here can be pretty hardcore in their 'woo-bashing' but you gotta understand, if you can't poke something with a stick, science will always say it simply isn't there. No offence science freaks, but you gotta admit that science, for all it's exploratory and open-minded proclamations, can be pretty blinkered on things that defy easy classification... etc.

So what is stopping you investigating whatever you want?

'Science god' rolleyes isn't stopping anyone who wants to scientifically investigating anything they want. There is no such controlling entity.
And a lot of research has been done in these areas. But you seem to fail to accept that if a field repeatedly gives little to no results, interest is going to wane, except from those who simply wish it were true.
(And obviously if anyone were to get positive results in these fringe areas the results would be colossal, both in fame and in money)

I don't suppose it might have occurred to you that maybe people who actually have spent years to become experts in a scientific field might actually research areas they want to research, areas they are interested in researching and areas that they feel might yield interesting results.

They might selfishly not choose to direct all their energy into other areas simply because some people who have no more interest in science than to criticise it and who have never put any effort in themselves would simply like real scientists to investigate their own pet theories.

"I have no interest in actually studying science myself but I believe scientists should ignore their own interests and study [insert 'fringe' pet theory] for me. If I don't like their results I shall criticise them from my sofa. Especially if their results disagree with that documentary I remember seeing 6 years ago on Discovery or Nickelodeon or somewhere. Maybe it was 8 years ago. I dunno. I don't care so long as someone else does the work for me."

 

[Malkuth]

I used the term 'poke with a stick' to refer to the wide range of tools science uses to discover what it can about the nature of physical reality, be it actual sticks, particle colliders, carbon dating, radio telescopes and the rest of it. It was just a figure of speech mate. By using it to refer to the OP's main subject, ghosts, I think it's perfectly reasonable to assert that ghosts can't be poked with a stick. Or smashed in a particle collider, or carbon dated etc. Science obviously doesn't have the tools to detect and measure a ghost, assuming they're real, which I'm not. But that's just me...

Your suggestion that I'm covering my eyes and taking the easy way out seems to me to be one of those debunker tools used to dismiss the people who take a slightly differing view than you do. I'm really interested in finding out the truth of things, and when science can conclusively disprove some of these issues I'll be happy as larry to go along with it. As far as physical reality is concerned I agree 100% that the scientific method is the way to go, because that's what science does, physical reality. It's freaky great at that stuff, even if it isn't complete. But there's really no proof either way on a lot of these types of issues. Occam's razor is a great way to get to what's likely or not, but it's not infallible. Just because something is unlikely or seems terribly improbable doesn't disprove it.

Rooting out the explanation for things that defy easy classification may be the very bread and butter of science, but science is still a work in progress, is it not? There are still things that science has no explanation for except negative assertion based on probabilistic likelihood, isn't there?