seeing the light in skepticism

Mojo said:
I suspect that some funding comes from people who aren't rich, but are gullible.
Click to expand...

Could you explain that? It's gullible to suppose that paranormal phenomena might possibly exist? How so? Is this because it goes against your metaphysical views of the world? Against what science tell us? What?

BTW, as an interesting aside, did you know that the word "gullible", which is not at all a rare word, is left out of all dictionaries, and will not be found no matter how many you look through? So much for dictionaries which people on here continually love to quote from :rolleyes:
 
Interesting Ian said:
Could you explain that? It's gullible to suppose that paranormal phenomena might possibly exist? How so? Is this because it goes against your metaphysical views of the world? Against what science tell us? What?

BTW, as an interesting aside, did you know that the word "gullible", which is not at all a rare word, is left out of all dictionaries, and will not be found no matter how many you look through? So much for dictionaries which people on here continually love to quote from :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You must think us gulls.
 
Interesting Ian said:
Could you explain that? It's gullible to suppose that paranormal phenomena might possibly exist? How so? Is this because it goes against your metaphysical views of the world? Against what science tell us? What?

BTW, as an interesting aside, did you know that the word "gullible", which is not at all a rare word, is left out of all dictionaries, and will not be found no matter how many you look through? So much for dictionaries which people on here continually love to quote from :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

My dictionary at work has a small mirror glued to the page at that entry.

JPK
 
Interesting Ian said:
...

BTW, as an interesting aside, did you know that the word "gullible", which is not at all a rare word, is left out of all dictionaries, and will not be found no matter how many you look through? So much for dictionaries which people on here continually love to quote from :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:i:

Merriam-Webster
Dictionary.com
Cambridge Dictionary Online
Bartleby.com (American Heritage Dictionary)
yourDictionary.com

And my handy-dandy New American Webster's College Dictionary here on my desk says (p. 311) gul'li-ble adj. easily duped.

So much for repeating something you've heard and not checked up on, Ian.
 
De'Ville's Advocaat said:
You're joking right? Seriously, the amount of taxation from your personal 'wallet' which would account for Psi research must be about 5p per person, per year. You probably spend that amount each day complaining about it on the internet!
Click to expand...
I would much more like see that that nickle went to helping abused women, victims of human traficing, aids research, 3:rd world aid, health care, or anything remotely connected to the real world.
 
Interesting Ian said:
What failures?

[snip]
Click to expand...
You are joking, right? After 150 years of research, and the PSI/ESP/parapsycology researchers has, to date, not come up with a single scienctifically valid result.

If you call that success, well...

OK, lets wait for awhile, and then we'll hear something like:
- "But there are scienctifically valid result, just look at these papers(followed by 3-5 links, at least two to articles of Radin, Bem or Dalton or even early Blackmore)"
- "The results are too dangerous for you small minded people, you just don't understand"
- "Meta-analysis show result, you just don't want to accept those"
- "Nature and Science are authorites, we don't trust them"
- "There must be PSI/ESP, how would we otherwise explain the supernatural mind"
 
Anders said:
You are joking, right? After 150 years of research, and the PSI/ESP/parapsycology researchers has, to date, not come up with a single scienctifically valid result.

If you call that success, well...

OK, lets wait for awhile, and then we'll hear something like:
- "But there are scienctifically valid result, just look at these papers(followed by 3-5 links, at least two to articles of Radin, Bem or Dalton or even early Blackmore)"
- "The results are too dangerous for you small minded people, you just don't understand"
- "Meta-analysis show result, you just don't want to accept those"
- "Nature and Science are authorites, we don't trust them"
- "There must be PSI/ESP, how would we otherwise explain the supernatural mind"
Click to expand...
And, of course, the perennial "more research is needed," meaning "the evidence we've obtained doesn't fit our preconceptions."
 
Interesting Ian said:
Could you explain that? It's gullible to suppose that paranormal phenomena might possibly exist?

No, but it could be to invest a lot of time or money in researching it, given the history of such research.

How so? Is this because it goes against your metaphysical views of the world? Against what science tell us? What?

Well, I can't see that the usual paranormal phenomena are compatible with what science tells us, but if there were repeatable experiments that demonstrated these phenomena then so much the worse for the current scientific view. Also I don't see that these phenomena have to exist as a consequence of your "metaphysical views".

BTW, as an interesting aside, did you know that the word "gullible", which is not at all a rare word, is left out of all dictionaries, and will not be found no matter how many you look through? So much for dictionaries which people on here continually love to quote from :rolleyes:

Nex, I cannot believe you fell for this. :hit: :D
Click to expand...
 
Anders said:
You are joking, right? After 150 years of research, and the PSI/ESP/parapsycology researchers has, to date, not come up with a single scienctifically valid result.

Click to expand...

Well that's completely innacurate and a good example of the topic of this thread. Anders, you are choosing not to see the reality for some reason. That is understandable, particulalrly if you have a lot invested in the old world view. You have been given example after example on this forum and even in this thread. The reaction by some has been to virtually put their hands over their eyes and whistle in the dark, for others the reaction is to invent either a supposed conspiracy of mass fraud within the scientific labs accross the world or suppose that the entire body of reports are the result of the biggest delusion in the history of mankind. The simplest explanation is that scientific models do not have a full working knowledge of all the mechanisms and effects in existence - this has been shown to be accurate throughout history, so it is pretty certain that that is the also the current state of affairs - and at the very LEAST some of these reports are exactly what they are purported to be, a currently anomalous effect which is currently beyond the understanding of known scientific laws. That, is the simplest, Occamic, explanation.
It is worth noting that it is completely logical for this effect to be suppressed until it is under complete control, for reaqsons of National security. You can be sure the systems of defence and intelligence throughout the world will categorically NOT want such effects to be in the power of the public domain unless the State/govt is in a position of complete control. So it is quite natural to suppose that systems already exist which 'gatekeep' the effect from any means of public access or control. That is not a wild conspiracy theory, it is a completely logical step to take for any statutory intelligence/defence organisation
 
De'Ville's Advocaat said:
It is worth noting that it is completely logical for this effect to be suppressed until it is under complete control, for reaqsons of National security. You can be sure the systems of defence and intelligence throughout the world will categorically NOT want such effects to be in the power of the public domain unless the State/govt is in a position of complete control. So it is quite natural to suppose that systems already exist which 'gatekeep' the effect from any means of public access or control. That is not a wild conspiracy theory, it is a completely logical step to take for any statutory intelligence/defence organisation
Click to expand...
Which is why the security services kept sabotaging your predictions...;)
 
De'Ville's Advocaat said:
Well that's completely innacurate and a good example of the topic of this thread. Anders, you are choosing not to see the reality for some reason. That is understandable, particulalrly if you have a lot invested in the old world view. You have been given example after example on this forum and even in this thread. The reaction by some has been to virtually put their hands over their eyes and whistle in the dark, for others the reaction is to invent either a supposed conspiracy of mass fraud within the scientific labs accross the world or suppose that the entire body of reports are the result of the biggest delusion in the history of mankind. The simplest explanation is that scientific models do not have a full working knowledge of all the mechanisms and effects in existence - this has been shown to be accurate throughout history, so it is pretty certain that that is the also the current state of affairs - and at the very LEAST some of these reports are exactly what they are purported to be, a currently anomalous effect which is currently beyond the understanding of known scientific laws. That, is the simplest, Occamic, explanation.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not. There have been many attempts to examine paranormal abilities over the years, and (as far as I'm aware, and as you seem to be implicitly accepting in the above quotation) in every case where the possibilities of fraud, observer bias or mistake have been eliminated the abilities have disappeared. Assuming for a moment that there are genuine paranormal abilities out there (and without invoking conspiracy theories) what is the likelihood of researchers choosing a loser every time?

The Occamic approach is to assume that the world outside the lab works by the same rules as the world inside.

Edited for spelling
 
Mojo said:


The Occamic approach is to assume that the world outside the lab works by the same rules as the world inside.

Edited for spelling
Click to expand...

Illogical. It has been shown throughout our evolution that what we know in the lab has been shown to be incomplete and is continually expanding. Current scientific knowledge cannot rationally be considered anything like complete. It is the very problem of having an existing effect being in conflict with known laws that creates the dissonance I am talking about.
 
De'Ville's Advocaat said:
It has been shown throughout our evolution that what we know in the lab has been shown to be incomplete and is continually expanding. Current scientific knowledge cannot rationally be considered anything like complete.
Click to expand...
The fact that we don't know all the rules is no reason for assuming that the rules are not the same everywhere.
It is the very problem of having an existing effect being in conflict with known laws that creates the dissonance I am talking about.
Click to expand...
If an effect is real, why would it disappear when examined under controlled conditions? Whether or not the effect is in conflict with known laws is irrelevant if it doesn't actually exist. If it can be shown to be real, then the rules will have to be reconsidered.

The argument that psychic effects can't be real because they are "in conflict with known laws" is, of course, an argument from authority. Have you brought it up as a straw man?
 
Dragon said:
Nex, I cannot believe you fell for this.
Click to expand...

LOL, I didn't-- I played along and it didn't show well in text. That's OK, I don't mind looking silly if it gets a laugh anyway. :p

*edited to add all the silly emoticons I should have put in the other post... :o :D ;) :p :o :p ;) *
 
Nex said:
LOL, I didn't-- I played along and it didn't show well in text. That's OK, I don't mind looking silly if it gets a laugh anyway. :p

*edited to add all the silly emoticons I should have put in the other post... :o :D ;) :p :o :p ;) *
Click to expand...

WOW! You sure fooled us all there Nex! We were all so certain that you fell for it! Just shows that it is we who are the gullible ones for thinking that you would be fooled! :eek:

{to everyone else ;) }
 
Oh stop, now you're the one being silly. God forbid I f*ck up a joke. A bad joke at that... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom