A question for believers

[flyboy217]

The term PSI came along many moons ago, we are just waiting for the scientific evidence to suggest that the hypothesis actually has any merit.

I think you missed my point. I'll repeat it again here: If present daily life is interesting, daily life with psi could only be more interesting.

I think they are areas that, so far, we have yet to see convicing evidence to support the claims. If evidence is presented that can be scientifically and repeatably tested to be shown to be true, then the skeptics will be happy to change their views.

Ah, yes. Like the lucid dreaming thread. There's the obligatory posts in there trying to debunk it ("lucid dreaming is CLEARLY impossible, so anyone who does it is stupid, lying, or crazy.") Lots of people do it, lots of the time. It's extraordinarily fun. What's there to debunk? Why? Do you honstly need more convincing evidence than has been provided to date?

How about hypnosis? The benefits have been demonstrated to such an extent that it's very much mainstream in medicine. It can improve healing time by a huge amount. It's not even surprising in light of the placebo effect--although I imagine many skeptics are scurrying around trying to debunk that, too. Any skeptic trying to debunk hypnosis by this point, in my mind, is cynical.

Well of course, the skeptics haven't been provided with any credible evidence to support those things, so only those who are prepared to make a leap of faith and accept them without evidence will be "into them"

There's no credible evidence for lucid dreaming, hypnosis, or meditation? You don't even need a leap of faith... pretty much anyone can do any of them. Hell, just try it.

The concepts have not been "shunned" (Dictionary.com: To avoid deliberately; keep away from.), if fact they are met head on time and time again. We keep asking for the evidence to support the claims. Interesting to some may believing in things that are un-proven, interesting to others is investigating the up-proven to see if any evidence can be found to support it.

My point still stands. With my very thorough grounding in math and science, I am a skeptic. But having made even basic investigations into such practices, I have found personal benefits that many "skeptics" are too haughty to look into for themselves. And that's a shame.

 

[Stitch]

The word no longer means that.

Stitch makes note to self - Ian is correct, the Dictionary is wrong

The majority of the "skeptics" on here most certainly do not fit that description.

Any chance of you substantiating that by listing the skeptics who do not fit that in your opinion and compare it to a list that do. Do you have any independant corroboration of your "value" judgement???

It might be helpful if you were to read this by Marcello Truzzi.

From your reference: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved"

From Dictionary.com "One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

And the definition of Agonostic??? "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

Hmmm - they look awfully similar definitions to me. So your point is that you disagree with the defenition from the reference you yourself cite as well then or are you just being obtuse in some manner that escapes me???

BTW referring to Skeptics as cynics does not seem to be inappropriate. It seems to me from my understanding of the term that you have quoted a skewed definition of the word "cynic".

That's a sweeping generalisation, incorrect and somewhat offensive. I do not doubt however that there are some skeptics that are cynical, but to generalise skeptics as cynical is unjust unless you can proove that we all are

Now, as to the evidence for certain paranormal phenomena, in particular "psi", there is a colossal amount of evidence for it. Of course how good all the evidence is, is another issue.

That's starting to get to the heart of it. Loads of "evidence" but the majority is worthless, I would say it is "all" worthless, but I don't profess to have seen "all" the evidence, just that I have yet to see anything remotely convincing as credible evidence.

If we concentrate on the scientific evidence, and from my admittedly limited study of the evidence, I tend to have the opinion that it is conceivable, albeit it unlikely, that all the evidence is due to artifacts of one nature or the other which are skewing the results in a positive direction.

I am not sure of your justification for that, it is also quite possible that just one very large artefact "cheating" for example, comprises of many different things and could have a huge imapct. Not saying it is, just saying it is quite possible. It would seem from your won admission that you are not in a position to make a judgement on this from any kind of position of authority, and I am happy to accept that I am not either. So in the absence of an "expert" from both camps at our disposal I think we will have to agree to disagree but both be prepared to keep and open mind and be prepared to change our view should suitable evidence be presented.

However, if we then bear in mind that such phenomena has been reported throughout history and across all cultures, and not infrequently either, then it seems to me to be irrational to deny the existence of this phenomena. This is not withstanding the psychological propensities of people to misinterpret, exaggerate, deceive etc.

Nor does repeating a falsehood time and time again make it true. The fact that lots of people "believe" something does not necessarily make it so.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you missed my point. I'll repeat it again here: If present daily life is interesting, daily life with psi could only be more interesting.

More interesting? Yes. More pleasant/desirable? Maybe not. . "Daily life with PSI" is not something I'm particularly looking for. Sounds like a potential nightmare.

 

[Interesting Ian]

II
The word no longer means that. The majority of the "skeptics" on here most certainly do not fit that description. They are dogmatists, .....

Cabby

the majority, huh?
How did you come to that conclusion?
Is it actually an opinion rather than something that can be measured and proven?

And are you saying that the universal meaning of the word has changed simply because of your perception of what occurs on one forum?

I come to that conclusion from my experiences of the past 2 years on here. You remind me when I was at University when people used to say "prove men are stronger than women!! ". Let's not be completely idotic hmmm?

It is extremely clear that the word "skeptic" is used to describe people of the beliefs that I have mentioned.

I'm sorry, but I really do not have time to discuss this with children. Grow up.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The word no longer means that.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stitch makes note to self - Ian is correct, the Dictionary is wrong

This is just symptomatic of the idiocies of Skeptics. It is extremely clear that dictionaries can be misleading, and yes, sometimes flat out wrong. The English language is a dynamic language.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of the "skeptics" on here most certainly do not fit that description.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Any chance of you substantiating that by listing the skeptics who do not fit that in your opinion and compare it to a list that do. Do you have any independant corroboration of your "value" judgement???

No there is no chance. As I say, the vast majority of people on here are Skeptics, but there are indeed sceptics as well eg dharlow, MikeD, T'ai Chi, Thanson, Mark. I'm not going to mention all the Skeptics because they constitute the vast majority of people on here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It might be helpful if you were to read this by Marcello Truzzi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



From your reference: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved"

From Dictionary.com "One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

And the definition of Agonostic??? "One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something."

Hmmm - they look awfully similar definitions to me.

Yes indeed. What is your problem Stitch?

So your point is that you disagree with the defenition from the reference you yourself cite as well then or are you just being obtuse in some manner that escapes me???

The definitions are of "skeptics" as originally defined. Those who now label themselves as "skeptics" do not fit this definition. Indeed it is quite the converse; they are dogmatists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW referring to Skeptics as cynics does not seem to be inappropriate. It seems to me from my understanding of the term that you have quoted a skewed definition of the word "cynic".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's a sweeping generalisation, incorrect and somewhat offensive.

I genuinely did not mean to be offensive there. I admit I often am deliberately offensive, but not there.

I do not doubt however that there are some skeptics that are cynical, but to generalise skeptics as cynical is unjust unless you can proove that we all are

Well, they are by virtue of how I define "Skeptic", ie they are by definition

And it's "prove" BTW, not "proove"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, as to the evidence for certain paranormal phenomena, in particular "psi", there is a colossal amount of evidence for it. Of course how good all the evidence is, is another issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's starting to get to the heart of it. Loads of "evidence" but the majority is worthless,

I rather think the phrase "worthless evidence" is an oxymoron. There is certainly evidence which is very weak, and evidence which has been eventually found to not to consitute evidence. But the phrase "worthless evidence" is an oxymoron.

I would say it is "all" worthless, but I don't profess to have seen "all" the evidence, just that I have yet to see anything remotely convincing as credible evidence.

Well, so what? What do you want me to do about it? I do not really care what convinces you and other Skeptics. You're operating from the premises of a clearly false metaphysic ie materialism. So I'm simply not interested.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we concentrate on the scientific evidence, and from my admittedly limited study of the evidence, I tend to have the opinion that it is conceivable, albeit it unlikely, that all the evidence is due to artifacts of one nature or the other which are skewing the results in a positive direction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not sure of your justification for that, it is also quite possible that just one very large artefact "cheating" for example, comprises of many different things and could have a huge imapct. Not saying it is, just saying it is quite possible.

Well, it is of course possible, albeit incredibly implausible, to say that every positive result is due to fraud. But if we adopt this attitude, then it is the end of science. All we can do is take extraordinary measures in order to minimise this possibility.

It would seem from your won admission that you are not in a position to make a judgement on this from any kind of position of authority, and I am happy to accept that I am not either. So in the absence of an "expert" from both camps at our disposal I think we will have to agree to disagree but both be prepared to keep and open mind and be prepared to change our view should suitable evidence be presented.

Yes.

 

[DionysianSmile]

No there is no chance. As I say, the vast majority of people on here are Skeptics, but there are indeed sceptics as well eg dharlow, MikeD, T'ai Chi, Thanson, Mark.

Why do I do have the feeling that these feel that they are skeptics purely because they are skeptical of skeptics?

 

[Kitty Chan]

Questions and clarifications

Im getting the understanding . . .

That not everyone who says they are a Skeptic actually fit the dictionary defination.

There seems to be some who are more true to that defination and some who are not.

Even those who are not still consider themselves Skeptics none the less, because the basic idea is there, its just theres always room for interperation

The ones that are closer to the dictionary defination feel they are more accurate

No one can really say exactly what the defination is because there seems to be shades of grey because

everyone seems to have a different idea on what makes up a open mind

This thread really is a question for believers

 

[DionysianSmile]

Questions and clarifications

Im getting the understanding . . .

That not everyone who says they are a Skeptic actually fit the dictionary defination.

There seems to be some who are more true to that defination and some who are not.

Even those who are not still consider themselves Skeptics none the less, because the basic idea is there, its just theres always room for interperation

The ones that are closer to the dictionary defination feel they are more accurate

No one can really say exactly what the defination is because there seems to be shades of grey because

everyone seems to have a different idea on what makes up a open mind

This thread really is a question for believers

For sure there is room for interpretations and there is a broad spectrum of how people decide to be skeptical. But primarily the division comes from the fact that believers accept that opinion is a reliable source of evidence, and in the end is the superior form of evidence for these kind of "skeptics". The problem is how do you determine whether a knowledge claim is true in virtue wholly in opinion. when those claims are constantly nullified by counterexample and verifiable evidence. Skeptics are relentless pursuers of truth, akin to the spirit of the dictionary definition, but then you have those that claim to be skeptics because they want to tailor words to have their personalized specific meaning. Like Ian saying that subjective reality is the same as objective reality. Well, how is it that we can deduce whether a knowledge claim is true or false in purely subjectively defined reality. All things musts be true in accordance to my reality. How can others verify claims? What do true and false really mean at that point? Not much really because they are epistemolgically equivalent to, say, physical evidence. Because all things are equal how is possible for knowledge, at all? If no knowledge, then what truth can be found? If you don't want to use words that are meaningfully understood then it is hard to understand why your understanding of the use is valid. Objective, precisely, refers to the material object. You can claim that an object is solely a projection of your own mind, but really that doesn't even matter; it's the use that has any import. I just think if you make the world subjective then how can you be skeptical?

 

[Stitch]

This is just symptomatic of the idiocies of Skeptics. It is extremely clear that dictionaries can be misleading, and yes, sometimes flat out wrong. The English language is a dynamic language.

Yes the English language is dynamic, but because certain people may choose to apply a label to themseleves that is incorrect or that other people find incorrect is not reasonable justification to change the definition of the original word.

No there is no chance. As I say, the vast majority of people on here are Skeptics, but there are indeed sceptics as well eg dharlow, MikeD, T'ai Chi, Thanson, Mark. I'm not going to mention all the Skeptics because they constitute the vast majority of people on here.

So we have un-substantiated opinion then?? I am afraid just beacuse you "believe" it does not make it so. It may in your mind, but I am remaining "agnostic" on the issue until further evidence is made available. I certainly agree that some people may be mis-represebting themseleves as skeptics / sceptics, but I certainly can't pass comment on all, or even the majority, and I don't think you can in all fairness either.

Yes indeed. What is your problem Stitch?

Note a problem, just seemed odd to cite something to make you point that contradicts your position, that's all.

The definitions are of "skeptics" as originally defined. Those who now label themselves as "skeptics" do not fit this definition. Indeed it is quite the converse; they are dogmatists.

Fine, so the these people are incorrectly categorised, they need to be re-categorised rather than change the definition of the "category"

I genuinely did not mean to be offensive there. I admit I often am deliberately offensive, but not there.

Fair enough, it would just seem to me that you are perhaps a little quick to generalise without making clear that your are doing so intentionally.

And it's "prove" BTW, not "proove"

No kidding Stitch reprimands his hands for not doing quite what his brain asked them to

I rather think the phrase "worthless evidence" is an oxymoron. There is certainly evidence which is very weak, and evidence which has been eventually found to not to consitute evidence. But the phrase "worthless evidence" is an oxymoron.

I don't dispute that, but you are using that term, I did not. My original text was: Loads of "evidence" but the majority is worthless

Note the quotes round evidence

Well, so what? What do you want me to do about it? I do not really care what convinces you and other Skeptics. You're operating from the premises of a clearly false metaphysic ie materialism. So I'm simply not interested.

Please provide your proof that I fall in to this group of people above. You seem to have categorised me without knowing an awful lot about me, are you always this quick to draw conclusions and with so little evidence to support it?

Well, it is of course possible, albeit incredibly implausible, to say that every positive result is due to fraud. But if we adopt this attitude, then it is the end of science.

I am not claiming that ALL are due to fraud, I am suggesting that the number of cases that could be classified as such may be significant as a whole host of actions by various parties could be losely termed as fraud. The rest could be due to non-fraudulant mis-interpretation or poor protocols etc etc, as I say, I don't think either of us have sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions either way, I am just asking you keep an open mind. I am still happy to agree that paranormal events may indeed be a reality, I have just not seen quality evidence to support this.

All we can do is take extraordinary measures in order to minimise this possibility.

Excellent - now we just need to get those being tested to agree to the same thing and we are half way there!!

 

[chillzero]

Fair enough, it would just seem to me that you are perhaps a little quick to generalise without making clear that your are doing so intentionally.
...

Please provide your proof that I fall in to this group of people above. You seem to have categorised me without knowing an awful lot about me, are you always this quick to draw conclusions and with so little evidence to support it?

Hey - at least you got a politer response than I did, when my intention was to highlight the same thing!

I curse my limited online time, that means I have to keep my posts shorter!!

 

[Stitch]

Hey - at least you got a politer response than I did, when my intention was to highlight the same thing!

I curse my limited online time, that means I have to keep my posts shorter!!

The curse of discussion boards. I lurked for a long time as I just "knew" I wouldn't be able to stop once I started. What happened?? Signed up, and lost almost a week thought posting and reading even more than normal.