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
.
Not quite ... there is never enough
valid evidence provided by the claimant(s) to support their claim(s). Personal experience as expressed by anecdotal testimony is invalid outside the subjective reference frame.
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.
.
Personal accounts must be backed up with valid evidence, preferably in the form of repeatably verifiable experiments. Whenever one person claims that the experiment he performs produce the results he claims, his claims are rendered invalid if no one else can reproduce the same results, using the same procedures, with the same equipment, and under the same conditions.
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.
.
This "Higher Standard" of which you speak is nothing more than the ability to repeat the same experiment, using the same procedures, with the same equipment, under the same conditions, and achieving the same results.
Because what is evidence?
.
Objective material that is both relavant to the claim and reliably obtained.
- Relevant: Evidence must relate to the claim in such a way that a direct causal connection between the claim and and the evidence is irrefutably established.
-
Reliable: Evidence must be derived through objective application of the Scientific Method, and not mere subjective testimony.
If I have seen Ghosts then I have evidence enough to know Ghosts are real. I have evidence for the existance of Ghost.
.
Subjective observations unsupported by relevant and reliable material evidence are invalid by default. It is up to the claimant to present relevant and reliable material evidence to support his or her claims
before those claims could be considered as possibly valid.
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.
.
This contradicts the previous quote. Either you have evidence or you do not.
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.
.
You claim your evidence is valid.
You must therefore provide evidence for the validity of your evidence. This is part of the
Chain of Evidence - proof of how the evidence was gathered, who gathered it, how it was stored, who stored it, how many other people have handled it, and why. Failure to provide a valid Chain of Evidence renders all claims of evidentiary validity null and void.
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.
.
The blame for the falsification of evidence to support a claim rests solely upon the claimant. It is not the difficulty of the exam that causes the student to cheat; it is the student who
chooses to cheat, rather than do the work necessary to pass the test.
Fake evidence is not good evidence - it is not even evidence at all! If fact, fake evidence is merely the foundation of "Junk" science (a.k.a, "Pseudo-Science"), which encompasses quack cures, conspiracy theories, and testimoies of close encounters with ghosts, extra-terrestrial aliens, and the Loch Ness monster.
By setting high standards for validity, much of what passes for rumor, innuendo, and delusion is eliminated -
no matter how credible the claims may seem - and we are left with irrefutable facts.
Never confuse credibility with validity.
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.
.
Which is why part of the Scientific Method involves independent peer-group review. Even scientists can mis-interpret their own results, so it is only right to ask other scientists within the same fireld of inquiry to examine the initial data, the test procedures, the resultant data, and the conclusions for errors in data, judgment, and procedure.
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.
.
Dogmatic approaches to investigation ensures that the same standards will be applied to each and every investigation, and that the derived conclusions will have similarly high standards of validity.
While I believe in the
possibility of the existance of ghosts, the
probability of their existance is extremely low when based on the disparity beteween the number of claims and the amount of valid evidence to support those claims.
Show me a ghost, and I will believe. Show me a photograph of a ghost, and get in line with the rest of the deluded wannabes.
Extraordinery claims require extraordinery evidence, but who decides what is extraordinery
.
Extraordinary claims either contradict or simply defy known scientific principles or any
reasonable extrapolation thereof.
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.
.
You now have a working definition of what constitutes an "Extraordinary" claim. I suggest that you apply it from now on.
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.
.
No, it's more like "
We who do not understand science demand that the rules be changed to suit us."
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.
.
No, the claim that Astrology works is invalid because there is no repeatably verifiable evidence to support the claim. Same goes for reincarnation, numerology, ghosts, homeopathy, religion, and a host of other faith-based concepts and practices.
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.
.
If something can not fit inside the box, then it falls into the realm of "Extraordinary Claims" (at best) or "Delusion and Fantasy" (at worst).
Astrology can not be explained without first positting ("Begging the Question") of a fifth, heretofore undetected force of nature. In all the history of science and fantasy, no repeatably verifiable evidence that is material, relevant, and reliable for any "Astrological" force has ever been demonstrated to exist, while the four forces you previously mentioned have been repeatedly demonstrated to exist.
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.
.
Either your use of Astrolgy as an example is relevant to support your claims, or it isn't. Submitting it as evidence and then dismissing it as evidence is known as a "Red Herring" fallacy, among others.
.
Nothing is at stake, as you have failed to prove any of your claims.
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.
.
There is only one Law of Astrology - "
Make the horoscopes you cast believable enough to your clients to inspire them to continue to patronize your services ... for a fee, of course."
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.
.
No, Science is evidence-based. Religion is faith-based ... so is Astrology.
Anything that is purely faith-based can not stand up to scientific examination, due to the inherent lack of evidence to support a faith-based idea or practice.
Just because you can't catch something doesn't mean it isn't real
.
So goes the mantra of all who despise science for being beyond their understanding, and who feel marginalized and ignored by those with greater understanding. This mantra is also known as the "Argument From Ignorance," and is the mainstay of conspiracy theorists are other members of the tinfoil-hat crowd.
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.
.
One major difference between religion and science is that science works - it is the foundation of every technological achievement and principle. Another major difference is that religion and superstition seek only to control people through ignorance and fear, while science seeks only to both know and understand how the universe really works.
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.
.
Then they are irrelevant. If an idea can not be repeatably and reliably verified through cause-and-effect demonstrations, then the remains only an idea, and an invalid one at that.
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.
.
Science does not claim non-existance of anything, only whether or not a claim is valid. It is up to the claimant to prove this validity, and not science to disprove it. Failure to establish validity renders a claim invalid.
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.
.
Religion and other faith-based ideas and practices are driven by fear. Science is driven by curiousity.
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 former being delusionally iconoclastic luddites, and the latter being scientists.
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.
.
This statement begs the question of whether or not ghosts actually exist in the first place. Evidence, please?
One can not fear that which doesn't exist - paranoiacs and impressionable children excepted, of course.
The real question is therefore why are the ghosts scary?.
.
I blame the media - "Ghost Story" is a very profitable genre in fantasy literature - especially among children and uneducated adults - but once a person grows up and realizes that there is not one shred of valid evidence to support the claim that ghosts exist, he or she is freed from the fear of ghosts and other fantasy creatures.
