What is "paranormal"? Part II

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is "paranormal"? Part II

Well sure, it is not entirely rational, but if sKeptics wish to persuade people to reject the paranormal, then making up ludicrous explanations for peoples' experiences is simply counter productive!

Perhaps throwing out alternate, non-paranormal possibilities is off-putting to those who are convinced that the paranormal exists, but it may be interesting to those who are neutral on the idea. It is in our nature to try to figure out how things work. I cannot watch a stage magician without wondering, "How did he do that?" so I think of ways it could have been done. Should I include in my list of "ways it could have been done" that it is indeed real magic?

And in my eyes this makes them just as irrational as the worst type of "woo woo" who just simply believes everything.

You find that people who look for solutions to questions without resorting to untestable, non-physical things to be irrational? My my. Certainly not every suggestion they make is going to be correct, but they are at least testable.

If you would see think and consider for a moment, rather than automatically simply disagreeing with everything I say, then you would realize that this is simply obviously true.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I do consider what you say. You have made some good points in the past. But you have a tendency to declare things as "simply obviously true" even as they are being destroyed by logic and evidence. Your intransigence is annoying, but it has nothing to do with your ideas. They stand or fall on thier own. Mostly, they fall, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Edited to add: And I am aware that Suggestologist is just as irrational as sKeptics in his dismissal of all things paranormal, but at least he has somewhat more intelligence than most of you guys.

LOL. Careful of trying to find partners, Ian. They may be yanking your chain. And please, insult my (our) intelligence to your heart's content. I am sure most readers will consider the source. Heck, I was once on your "ignore" list, which is something of a badge of honor.

 

[Tricky]

Yes, you could look at it as a sort of false dichotomy effect. But the point is not that it's a false dichotomy; but that showing an opposition argument to be false causes people to increase their certainty in their own position. That's true for most skeptics and believers.

Certainly that is an aspect of human nature, and indeed it is not without merit. If two ideas are compared and one is provably wrong, the other could be considered the better of the two, though it still does not make it a "good" idea. But there is a problem here. When comparing physical explanations for a thing versus non-physical explanations, only the physical one can be shown to be wrong, because the other is simply untestable. For me, an explanation that is based only on faith or philosophy is no explanation at all, or at least not a useful one.

And Interesting Ian is right; I've seen skeptical arguments that show a poor understanding of the subject under contention. And the classic skeptic example is the argument of people claiming that hot rock walkers are walking on cold rocks.

That's a new one on me, for I've not seen a skeptic claim that the rocks/coals were cold. I have a pretty good understanding of hot-rock walking, and I would never contend that the rocks are cold, because that is very easy to disprove with a thermometer. True, some skeptics might incorrectly suspect such a thing, but I doubt they would hold on to that idea once shown the evidence. However, it can also be shown that the hot rocks (coals, actually) will burn even the most devout and well-trained of believers if they stay on them long enough. (I believe there is a video that demonstrates this.) Oddly, this does not cause the believers to discard their ideas. Which group has the more rational approach?

On the believer side; it's like the second law of thermodynamics argument against evolution; -- it shows a poor understanding of both thermodynamics and of evolution theory.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I think that at heart, most believers recognize the thermodynamic aspect, i.e., their feet do indeed get hot, if not burned. Heck, I'll bet even the spiritual masters instruct neophyte fire-walkers not to stand in one place too long.

It would take a very poor understanding of evolution to suggest that it has anything to do with how people can learn to walk on hot coals.

 

[Suggestologist]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. I think that at heart, most believers recognize the thermodynamic aspect, i.e., their feet do indeed get hot, if not burned. Heck, I'll bet even the spiritual masters instruct neophyte fire-walkers not to stand in one place too long.

It would take a very poor understanding of evolution to suggest that it has anything to do with how people can learn to walk on hot coals.

I'm referring to the increasing entropy argument against evolution some Christians like to use. It doesn't have anything to do with the hot rock walking example; except that both are examples of a poor understanding of the underlying subject.

 

[Tricky]

I'm referring to the increasing entropy argument against evolution some Christians like to use. It doesn't have anything to do with the hot rock walking example; except that both are examples of a poor understanding of the underlying subject.

Ah, of course. How imperceptive of me. And it is true, I have heard the "entropy" argument many times, but I still have never heard the "rocks/coals are cold" argument from a skeptic. I have heard them argue that the coals have a low heat conductance, which is in fact true, and is the principal reason that fire-walking is possible.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Suggestologist]

Ah, of course. How imperceptive of me. And it is true, I have heard the "entropy" argument many times, but I still have never heard the "rocks/coals are cold" argument from a skeptic. I have heard them argue that the coals have a low heat conductance, which is in fact true, and is the principal reason that fire-walking is possible.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yes, low conductance.

When the internet was still pretty new, it was not as easy to find out what is really going on a topic of interest or contention, such as firewalking -- no google, no altavista. Skeptics were often outnumbered, or on their own on believer BBS message list groups. I could not tell you exactly where I saw the argument, but I have seen it.

Further, I have seen arguments about subjects I'm familiar with -- arguments which are clearly wrong. For a simple example in cryonics -- skeptics have argued that a power failure could do damage -- but (at least) Alcor does not rely on electrically powered freezing.