Would proof change your skeptical nature?

[Flame]

If something paranormal (ie telekinesis) was proven to you, would that make you less skeptical regarding other wacky outer-limits type things?

If I could prove to you that I could move a couch by simply 'willing' it to move, then would you be more likely to believe another person who says they have seen a ghost?

I would like to believe that I would hold the same position of needing hard proof, but I think I'd be less skeptical as a rule.

Toni

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I voted no, but I would have to add a provision to that. If the proof had implications that pointed toward some other field, i.e. if they proved telekineses was real and the mechanism behind it MIGHT explain ESP as well, for example, then it would boviously make me less skeptical toward that particular thing.

However in general, I would have to say no, because even if they proved, say, telekinesis, that wouldn't make something like The Loch Ness Monster seem any more plausible to me.

 

[Chanileslie]

I answered don't know, would have to wait and see because quite frankly, I think the term proof is way over used. I would be satisfied with good strong, verifiable evidence that has held up to scientific testing.

Also, just because good evidence is provided for one type of paranormal experience, I would hardly begin accepting all as fact, each must provide it's own hard evidence and I must be able to evaluate each on it's merits before I am willing to say, "Woo-woo 1 is true, so therefore Woo-woo 2-infinity is true". Just because one thing is true, doesn't make everything true, and it is lazy, poor thinking to assume that just because A is true then B is true.

And last, without hard, verifiable evidence, I am pretty much going to think, "Yeah, that seemed very realistic, but I *know* there is something behind this that I am missing!" I think that everytime I see a very well done magic trick. I know it appears to be real, but I also know that it is a trick, and if I knew how the trick worked, I would no longer see it as real.

 

[Chanileslie]

BTW, Flame, off topic, why the mad face avatar? I liked your previous avatar much better.

 

[athon]

It takes a fundamental understanding of how science operates to be able to address such an issue as this.

You say what would 'prove' the paranormal - this in itself is a flawed approach. Proof has connotations of being definitive. It is not a matter of proof, but a weight of evidence that would determine whether something exists or not. So let's see how science operates;

Most things we understand begins with a hypothesis - a speculation that rationalizes an observation or event. It is indeed that; pure speculation. However, it is usually inspired by things such as anecdotes (a collection of unsubstantiated observations made by third parties) or statistical 'oddities' (something that doesn't meet the expected norm). But at this point, it is a 'what if?'

From there, you look at all of the things that would make that hypothesis not true. You ask questions, like 'if A was true, then B would not be'. In other words, you attack your own idea. You then create experiments based on a set of rules to see if your idea holds up against attack. Understand, that if these experiments do hold up, it only means you have chiselled away at the 'flaws', not necessarily 'proven' your hypothesis. It's all a game where you sweep away the reasons for NOT believing in it.

Congratulations, your hypothesis is now a theory. Of course, this depends on whether your experiments followed the rules. This is a subjective matter, and where sticking points often occur in discussion forums such as this. When are statistics significant? When is an aspect of a hypothesis 'disproven'? This is why experiments should be open to peer evaluation, so flaws in the experiments can be rationalized or substantiated.

This, unfortnately, is the border between pseudoscience and true science. Pseudoscience often ends here, with speculation that an experiment has proven a hypothesis. Often, it doesn't even make it this far - its stays with the statistics and stories that should be merely inspiring a hypothesis.

The next step you take with your infant theory is to use it to predict an event or an observation. If it can do this, it becomes a 'robust' theory, and on its way to being included as a scientific principle or law.

When does it become accepted as a principle? Again, this is subjective, but if it can be repeated it begins to carry more and more weight. For me there is no clear cut limit. If it contradicts previous principles, it needs to at least meet the level of experimentation it took to arrive at the principle it contradicts. If it is a new field, then it must meet with enough scrutiny that it fits the paradigm it is being associated with.

Science is not a clear-cut 'truth/lie' field. It is a momentum, where evidence builds and interest follows, every step being a tentative one until you can trust that a hypothesis can carry its weight and be relied upon.

To answer the question, what would it take for me to believe in an unqualified principle? It's hard to answer with a quantity of evidence, but it would begin with a hypothesis becoming a theory, become strengthened with that theory becoming robust, and would have my support when that is replicated enough that it meets the same level of evidence as the science it is superceding.

Athon

 

[Corey]

Proof of something existing (and to me that doesn't consiste of having a "paranormal/unexplained experience, it consists of measurable physical/observable evidence that can be verified by other parties under controlled conditions...not seeing a light in the sky or getting a cold read) would prove THAT to me. Not everything. Showing me that aliens do in fact exist and have the capacity for long distance space travel doesn't prove ESP or life after death or gods or dowsing, etc. I don't think proving one paranormal thing proves all of them. Most of them having nothing to do with each other. If you could say prove telekinesis, I would be more open to the possibitlity of telepathy, since they seem somewhat related, but even in that case I would STILL be skeptical until I observed evidence to my satisfaction.


I think this question, in essence is asking...is skepticism a disbelief in EVERYTHING paranormal and/or unexplainable or is it a belief in ONLY the things that are consistently proveable within the context of the current knowledge of how and why things happen/work.

To me, it's the latter...therefore I believe in what can be reasonably proven to me, and one thing won't make me believe or disbelieve in EVERYTHING.

 

[HelloCruelWorld]

I voted no because if something like Telekinesis were proven to exist than it is no longer paranormal, but becomes something to study scientifically.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I voted yes, but only to related things.

If for example telekinesis were demonstated as existing, it would make me more amenable to other forms of Psi. It would not make me more accepting of claims about cryptozoology or the persistance of conciousness after death.

 

[Garrette]

I agree in the main with Corey.

Beyond that, I do not think your question is asking what you believe it to be asking.

Proof (in a loose sense) would cause me to trust the veracity of that particular claim. It would do nothing to change my 'nature.' If anything, it would cement it, as I would ascribe the acquisition of such proof as a success for the skeptical and the scientific, otherwise proof would have been felt unnecessary and unsought.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I voted no. Sufficient proof could make me change my position about a particular phenomenon, but I'd still stay skeptical in general.

I also make a distinction between different things I disbelieve. For example, someone coming up with a live specimen of bigfoot or really being able to dowse would not change my general world view at all.

Talking to the dead (and getting answers) is a different matter. If that were proven, I'd have to change my whole view of what life is like.

 

[Flame]

Thank you for your great replies. This is the reason I come to this board (no, surprisingly it's not for the appreciation threads )

I suppose what I meant was, if something was proved to your satisfaction, would you be more likely to turn full-fledged Woo-Woo (although, it might not be woowooiness at that point, I guess)


When I take my thoughts further I realise that IMO you'd have to be a silly bugger to project the results of one situation on to a completely different one.

I'm glad to realise that contrary to my initiial opinion of myself I would not become a ravingmediumvisitinguberastrologist.


Corey, I intended to ask if one would be more likely to believe other claims.
I agree with what you say.

Athon, everything you said in your reply I agree with.
With that line of logic you can't go far wrong... the only thing is that if I moved a truck for you *once* and could never do it again, you wouldn't give me the credit - I want the credit dammit

Seriously though, when you put it like that I can't do anything but agree.


Garrette, Well said.

Abdul C'mon now, if someone came up with a live specimen of bigfoot it would definetly change my world view!
I'd have to seriously question the family origins of a hell of a lot of men I've met

Toni

 

[Flame]

BTW, Flame, off topic, why the mad face avatar? I liked your previous avatar much better.

Long story, involving a cranky day... d'you remember when you were a kid and your Dad said to you 'Your face is going to get stuck like that' ?

Let this be a lesson to all !

Toni

 

[tim]

Thank you for your great replies. This is the reason I come to this board (no, surprisingly it's not for the appreciation threads )

I suppose what I meant was, if something was proved to your satisfaction, would you be more likely to turn full-fledged Woo-Woo (although, it might not be woowooiness at that point, I guess)


When I take my thoughts further I realise that IMO you'd have to be a silly bugger to project the results of one situation on to a completely different one.

I'm glad to realise that contrary to my initiial opinion of myself I would not become a ravingmediumvisitinguberastrologist.


You mean you aren't a ravingmediumvisitinguberastrologist already?
I would accept the proven paranormal phenomenon but it would not mean I would accept other alleged phenomena. If telekinisis was proved I would not then automatically believe John Edward.

edited to knock the s of edwards

 

[Flame]

*snip*...You mean you aren't a ravingmediumvisitinguberastrologist already?

Nope. Any meeting I may have been seen at was attended purely for research purposes


Toni

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

No,

lets take your example of moving

a couch by simply 'willing' it to move

I would not accept that as proof until there was an experiment set up that was testable, repeatable, and done in a double blind setting.

A casual setting with no controls would be alright for the initial demonstration, but then a robust scientific test needs to be set up to confirm that what was demonstrated was not due to other factors:

for example the couch moved

because the demonstration was done on an inclined plane with wheels attached to the bottom of the couch

in hurricaine force winds

because it was balanced in a precarious manner, taking advantage of potential energy.

because eyewitnesses said so in testimonies.

I would want to know what the initial speed of the couch was, the final speed and find the difference. Velocity. Accelaration. Distance moved. Direction moved in relation to horizontal and vertical.

As I think of more I will add them.

then would you be more likely to believe another person who says they have seen a ghost?

No

 

[Flame]

No,

lets take your example of moving

I would not accept that as proof until there was an experiment set up that was testable, repeatable, and done in a double blind setting.

A casual setting with no controls would be alright for the initial demonstration, but then a robust scientific test needs to be set up to confirm that what was demonstrated was not due to other factors:

for example the couch moved

because the demonstration was done on an inclined plane with wheels attached to the bottom of the couch

in hurricaine force winds

because it was balanced in a precarious manner, taking advantage of potential energy.

because eyewitnesses said so in testimonies.

I would want to know what the initial speed of the couch was, the final speed and find the difference. Velocity. Accelaration. Distance moved. Direction moved in relation to horizontal and vertical.

As I think of more I will add them.



No

Sorry, you misunderstand. I'm saying if this certain paranormal thing was proven to your satisfaction - so you are to assume that the couch situation happened and you were satisfied that I could, in fact perform telekinesis... With that in mind, then you answer the question.

Toni

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Sorry, you misunderstand. I'm saying if this certain paranormal thing was proven to your satisfaction - so you are to assume that the couch situation happened and you were satisfied that I could, in fact perform telekinesis... With that in mind, then you answer the question.

Toni

No, I did understand. I understood that I had to make a lot of assumptions. If is the operative word here, and people can go on and on about if. I recognised what you were trying to do in the origional post. You are using a tactic that will get the response that you want.

I don't know or understand the reasons why, but you want to hear people say they will grant you the benefit of the doubt that you can move furniture via TK and that an eyewitness account of a ghost encounter is going to be more plausible if you can move a couch. The options you present are limited and they appear to be chosen to support your world view and what you want to hear.

"Concede this, if......."

"If not this, then at least concede this."

"Barring that, then at the very least concede this, if......."

Participants in the poll are being asked to choose based on assumptions, and I don't find that a choice at all, but manipulative.
The only other viable option would be "I am reserving the right not to make a judgement", which I concede may be your option four if you making an honest attempt to word that to allow that option.

 

[Flame]

No, I did understand. I understood that I had to make a lot of assumptions. If is the operative word here, and people can go on and on about if. I recognised what you were trying to do in the origional post. You are using a tactic that will get the response that you want.

I don't know or understand the reasons why, but you want to hear people say they will grant you the benefit of the doubt that you can move furniture via TK and that an eyewitness account of a ghost encounter is going to be more plausible if you can move a couch. The options you present are limited and they appear to be chosen to support your world view and what you want to hear.

"Concede this, if......."

"If not this, then at least concede this."

"Barring that, then at the very least concede this, if......."

Participants in the poll are being asked to choose based on assumptions, and I don't find that a choice at all, but manipulative.
The only other viable option would be "I am reserving the right not to make a judgement", which I concede may be your option four if you making an honest attempt to word that to allow that option.

You're weird.

I was simply curious to know how people thought they would react if they were to find out that something paranormal actually had basis in fact - and would it affect their sceptisism on a whole or not.
I started thinking about it the other night on a long drive, and wondered what other people thought about it.

I do not believe I have any sort of paranormal talents, and at this point nor do I believe anyone else does.
Why you chose to take that I did from my post, I don't know - but you definetly misunderstand my motives in posting.

In future, maybe you should try asking before you assign motive to someone's actions... if you aren't prepared to do that, I hope you are at least prepared to hear that you are wrong in your assumption.

It is ridiculous to say that I was 'using a tactic to get the response that I wanted' unless you are referring to my desire for people to post their thoughts on the matter as the response that I wanted.

Toni

 

[thaiboxerken]

I voted no because the proper answer isn't there. It seems you base all of this skepticism and belief on personal experience. If I experienced a "paranormal" event, I still wouldn't believe it. I would need scientific evidence to start believing. I know I can be fooled, as I don't know how every magic trick works. Paranormal events are like magic tricks.

was simply curious to know how people thought they would react if they were to find out that something paranormal actually had basis in fact - and would it affect their sceptisism on a whole or not.

Your poll doesn't even come close to answering this question.

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

was simply curious to know how people thought they would react if they were to find out that something paranormal actually had basis in fact - and would it affect their sceptisism on a whole or not.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Your poll doesn't even come close to answering this question.

I agree

Originally posted by Flame
In future, maybe you should try asking before you assign motive to someone's actions... if you aren't prepared to do that, I hope you are at least prepared to hear that you are wrong in your assumption.

I am prepared to hear that I am wrong. Are you prepared to accept that your world view won't necessarily get validation here? To accept that what you want to hear from this poll and what is said may not give you the affirmation that you appear to be seeking?