A question for skeptics and non-believers

[White Crane Feather]

Really? Exaggerate much? Can I ask what sort of ghost or demon or whatever would be the best one as far as catchability, or actual, you know, EVIDENCE?

What's YOUR very best example of compelling evidence to date?

Well, naturally, given there isn't any actual evidence, what else could you possibly use?

That's lovely. Have you tested this ability in any way, or must we just take your word (and who wouldn't...)? Some have done some very simple tests, and found that these out of body experiences didn't stand much scrutiny. Did the person 'experience' something? Yes, I'm quite sure they did. Just like I experience dreams...

Generalise and ad hominem much? I'm a skeptic, so I guess that means I'm likely one of those sheep..

Yeah, that's such a BAD thing! And it's a great example of a straw man argument. I DO think dreams are real. But is their content real? Similarly, if someone genuinely believes in an experience or perception, I also accept that experience or perception is real to them. Does that make that perception (or dream content..) truly real?

I disagree. Most discoveries are made by those who are familiar with the topic and apply rigour and methodology to it in order to widen our knowledge base.

In fact I challenge you to name a good number of the discoveries made by those on the fringe.. And we'll compare that with the number made by those who are just doing their job.. I'd also point out that those discoveries were not accepted until they were verified as testable, repeatable.. by.. the mainstream.

Indeed it is. Like this:

Rubbish. EVERYTHING we perceive is processed by our brains. Every single image you see, sound you hear, etc is a perception, affected by your senses, your past experience, your brain's enormous storehouse of memories and the processing it does to meld the new information into the mix. Even the scene that you are seeing right now, no matter what it is, contains several inaccuracies (- I'm happy to elaborate). And the proliferation of things like optical illusions or even the effects of mind-altering substances, should tell you that perception is an extraordinarily tricky business. And I haven't even started on hoaxes..

My perceptions are often flawed. My memories are often inaccurate, even on important details. So YES, I can and sometimes do deny and/or question my personal experiences.

If you truly believe that you are different, you are simply kidding yourself.

BTW, what exactly is the problem with Randi's challenge? Is it the fact that the challenger gets to help design the tests and has to be happy with the methodology beforehand? Seems to me that it couldn't be much fairer..

And again, please give your very best evidence of the paranormal, and we'll apply a bit of rigour, shall we?

Would you like me to suggest a very simple test for your OOBE's? You will need a Justice of the Peace or Notary Public who is amenable to following some simple instructions and willing for their identity to be fully verified, but other than that it would only take a very small amount of effort.. Think of this as a simplified Randi-type challenge without the reward (other than the kudos if you were successful).. And yes, you'll get to agree to the (very few) conditions, but if you refuse any of them you will have to explain why and suggest better ones.

PS - my presence here can be a bit patchy, you may have to be patient..

Well I'll try to keep up with all that on my little iPhone.

I'm not exaggerating at all. Even myself. If scientists claimed they caught a spirit I would not believe it. I would have to see it. Then even then I would remain sceptical thinking it was some sort of hoax. It takes a powerful personal experience to change somebody's mind wether that experience be with faith in empiricism or being smacked.

Hmmmm a fallacy pointing out a common fallacy.... Guess I'm guilty.

Yes It is a bad thing when the potential exists for those gurus to be completely wrong and perpetuate dogmas.

There is a plethora of evidence. But all forms of evidence are flawed, therefore it's the aggregate of the evidences that start to show a bigger picture and make certain things more and more likely. Empiricism is Useful but just as flawed S the ober forms of evidence. Being an empirical fundamentalist and only accepting empirical evidence for everything absolutely always leads to a completely inaccurate view, because there things in existence that cannot be measured by empirical standards, and there is vast amount of unknowable knowledge. This is why all bits of evidence from different places need to be considered. Would you like me to explain an example of the glaring failure of empiricism.

Of course it dosnt make it real.... But it dosnt make it not real either. Did you really drive a car in that dream? Of course not. But there is a deeper reality happening.

Of course everything is happening in our minds....see the quote under my avatar.

That's all I was saying. The frontlines are where discoveries are made. There are lots of discovers made by accident while persuing other things, and there are lots of metaphysical discoveries made by people. These cannot be classified as scientific discoverys because as you pointed out. The nature of our existence is extremely personal. We are locked into our perceptions. A deep inner discovery is not measurable. But that dosnt mean it did not happen. It is repeatable However. You just have to be a participant to repeat it.

You do not have the slightest clue about the nature of the OOB environment. How could you possibly design a test in such ignorance? I have got a better idea. Why don't you let me be your tutor, and you do it yourself. Then when the time comes I will show you how to proove it to yourself. It's a little tricky given the nature of sponsoring thoughts, but it can be done.

Oh that's right.... You don't trust your own experiences....

A bit of rigor? You mean a load of creative philibustering don't you?

Edited August 27, 2012 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

Personal experiences, as we all know, are very subjective and thusly cannot count as evidence of any kind. Any sort of phenomena, to be proven, would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable, otherwise it may as well be dismissed as any kind of evidence.

All evidence is a personal experience.

[Imaginarynumber1]

To the skeptics, nothing is never "enough." It's just how it is...

And to believers every shadow is proof.

All evidence is a personal experience.

No. It's not. Personal experiences are subjective evidence. They are unverifiable, usually unrepeatable and boil down to nothing but personal opinion. Objective evidence is verifiable by outside parties, repeatable, testable, etc. Objective evidence is factual, subjective evidence is not.

[Radian]

From that viewpoint, I'm trying to understand what if anything is left to be given as "proof". That's why I gave the youtube example above. While the show is thought of as cheesy or hokey by many, in this one particular example, they go the extra step and have an expert forensic video engineer put it through the paces. Does the fact that he found without a doubt that the video has not been altered prove anything?? Not sure that helps at all...but the best way I can explain my viewpoint.

Let me give my example on "experience." Experience is real, it can not be proven scientifically, or captured on a photograph, or film, why? because the experience is memory- thoughts, emotions attached to that memory. This can not be proven by science. But we know we expeienced a certain thing... it's real. It may not be captured by science, forgodsakes, but it's real. Same as spirit. There's no difference.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Let me give my example on "experience." Experience is real, it can not be proven scientifically, or captured on a photograph, or film, why? because the experience is memory- thoughts, emotions attached to that memory. This can not be proven by science. But we know we expeienced a certain thing... it's real. It may not be captured by science, forgodsakes, but it's real. Same as spirit. There's no difference.

The problem with memory is that it is not an exact recording of an event like people think it is. Memories can, and often do, change over time. Also what one person experiences and attributes to the paranormal maybe just be something that they are not familiar with or something they misidentified, etc.

And to add, there is no reason for belief in "spirit" outside of religion. It's not testable, observable, or even quantifiable.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Radian]

And to believers every shadow is proof.

No. It's not. Personal experiences are subjective evidence. They are unverifiable, usually unrepeatable and boil down to nothing but personal opinion. Objective evidence is verifiable by outside parties, repeatable, testable, etc. Objective evidence is factual, subjective evidence is not.

Spirit can NOT be proven by science because Spirit is NOT scientific, it's spirit. For example, Dissect a brain and you have physical matter, but to detect memories, feelings, personality It/'s impossible- Can NOT be done even with all of our technology we have, LOL, it can't be proven. Conversely, Spirit can not be scientific- We're discussing the comparison b/t apples and oranges here. That's why I hate these freakin arguements btw.

When we die, we physically die. But, there are things that we are that leave us that are free, such as our emotions, personalities, attachments through emotions, thoughts, basically who we are, our spirit. It moves on. It never dies. It merely stays with us encased in our physical bodies while we are alive, once we die, our spirit frees itself.

It can't be proven. Nor, wil it never will be.

AND BTW, im NOT religious at all- just to clarify.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Shankpin

[Imaginarynumber1]

Spirit can NOT be proven by science because Spirit is NOT scientific, it's spirit. For example, Dissect a brain and you have physical matter, but to detect memories, feelings, personality It/'s impossible- Can NOT be done even with all of our technology we have, LOL, it can't be proven. Conversely, Spirit can not be scientific- We're discussing the comparison b/t apples and oranges here. That's why I hate these freakin arguements btw.

When we die, we physically die. But, there are things that we are that leave us that are free, such as our emotions, personalities, attachments through emotions, thoughts, basically who we are, our spirit. It moves on. It never dies. It merely stays with us encased in our physical bodies while we are alive, once we die, our spirit frees itself.

It can't be proven. Nor, wil it never will be.

AND BTW, im NOT religious at all- just to clarify.

That's your belief, not fact. Science clearly shows that our minds are a result of electrochemical reactions. If something is factual and exists, objectively, it can be proven. To date, the concept of spirit or soul has never been evidenced in any way and many many a men have tried.

[Radian]

That's your belief, not fact. Science clearly shows that our minds are a result of electrochemical reactions. If something is factual and exists, objectively, it can be proven. To date, the concept of spirit or soul has never been evidenced in any way and many many a men have tried.

LOL i NEVER said it was a fact. I'm able to discus my "beliefs" as well as you are.

and again, As I stated in a previous post you can't prove spirit. There is no evidence wih spirit because spirit can't be proven scientifically. & (I assume when you mention "evidence" you mean scientifically proven.)

[Imaginarynumber1]

LOL i NEVER said it was a fact. I'm able to discus my "beliefs" as well as you are.

and again, As I stated in a previous post you can't prove spirit. There is no evidence wih spirit because spirit can't be proven scientifically. & (I assume when you mention "evidence" you mean scientifically proven.)

I also never said that you said it was fact. I just reaffirmed that it was your opinion. And I will again state that ANYTHING that exists can be ""proven" scientifically, as science is not only the classification of knowledge, but the way in which we purse such knowledge. That's why we know such things as vampires, elves and eskimos don't exist. Because of critical thinking and testable, repeatable hypotheses, not adherence to beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Emma_Acid]

I understand the viewpoints going back and forth, but have yet to see an answer to my question from any of the skeptics or non-believers. Can you give an example of a type of evidence that would be shown to you that might change your mind

I answered this - and it is not a difficult thing to understand: scientific evidence is what is needed. It really is as simple as that. If you understand the scientific method, then you understand what is needed for something to be established as fact (or as close to fact as it allows).

A blurry photo and people thinking they saw something is not scientific evidence.

I did not say it was the best way to objectify something I said it was the best way to covince somebody of something.

And is therefore useless.

[Radian]

I also never said that you said it was fact. I just reaffirmed that it was your opinion. And I will again state that ANYTHING that exists can be ""proven" scientifically, as science is not only the classification of knowledge, but the way in which we purse such knowledge.

Of course, anything that "exists" physically can be proven. Memories, emotions, personality can't be proven because it doesn't "exists" physically. Similar to Psychology, it's not brain surgery it's based soley on personality and disorders that can only be proven by actions/observations of the actions of the person- the person's patterns of thoughts etc,.

That's why we know such things as vampires, elves and eskimos don't exist. Because of critical thinking and testable, repeatable hypotheses, not adherence to beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

I don't necessarily believe in those things, personally. But, I'll tell you "reality" is what we (observe.)

Edited August 27, 2012 by Shankpin

[Imaginarynumber1]

Of course, anything that "exists" physically can be proven. Memories, emotions, personality can't be proven because it doesn't "exists" physically. Similar to Psychology, it's not brain surgery it's based soley on personality and disorders that can only be proven by actions/observations of the actions of the person- the person's patterns of thoughts etc,.

I don't necessarily believe in those things, personally. But, I'll tell you "reality" is what we (observe.)

I never said exists physically. I said exists. Memories, emotions and personality are all testable, repeatable and observable. Ghosts, spirit, NIckleback making good music, are not things that exist.

[Radian]

I never said exists physically. I said exists. Memories, emotions and personality are all testable, repeatable and observable. Ghosts, spirit, NIckleback making good music, are not things that exist.

No, not testable, repeatable, but only meets a particular pattern of observation of thought patterns/personality/behaviors that meets criteria to make diagnosis.

lol, you have no arguement I see.

The sound of the music don't exist, and neither do ghost- :}

[Imaginarynumber1]

No, not testable, repeatable, but only meets a particular pattern of observation of thought patterns/personality/behaviors that meets criteria to make diagnosis.

lol, you have no arguement I see.

The sound of the music don't exist, and neither do ghost- :}

I have a very clear and concise argument, you just choose to ignore it. This is like talking to a brick wall...

[White Crane Feather]

And to believers every shadow is proof.

No. It's not. Personal experiences are subjective evidence. They are unverifiable, usually unrepeatable and boil down to nothing but personal opinion. Objective evidence is verifiable by outside parties, repeatable, testable, etc. Objective evidence is factual, subjective evidence is not.

Looking at objective evidence and accepting it is a personal experience. You cannot escape it.

[Radian]

I have a very clear and concise argument, you just choose to ignore it. This is like talking to a brick wall...

As I said You have no arguement & I'm bored.

[White Crane Feather]

And is therefore useless.

Useless ??

It's the basis for all knowledge. It's how we learn to interact with the world.... It's how we make observations. It's only useless for the fundamentalist.

[Emma_Acid]

Looking at objective evidence and accepting it is a personal experience. You cannot escape it.

Wrong way round. You can look at something objective and accept it as a personal experience, but that doesn't mean personal experience is objective evidence.

[Emma_Acid]

Useless ??

It's the basis for all knowledge. It's how we learn to interact with the world.... It's how we make observations. It's only useless for the fundamentalist.

No it isn't. The way we learn about the world is through an aggregate of empirical discovery. Its the sum of all scientific discovery. What it isnt, is a collection of things people thought they might have seen.

[White Crane Feather]

The problem with memory is that it is not an exact recording of an event like people think it is. Memories can, and often do, change over time. Also what one person experiences and attributes to the paranormal maybe just be something that they are not familiar with or something they misidentified, etc.

And to add, there is no reason for belief in "spirit" outside of religion. It's not testable, observable, or even quantifiable.

You are incorrect. It is all of those things. What it is not is controllable.

[Imaginarynumber1]

As I said You have no arguement & I'm bored.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Enjoy being bored.

[Imaginarynumber1]

You are incorrect. It is all of those things. What it is not is controllable.

Are you saying that spirit is all of those things? If so, I simply ask, prove it. But you and I have done that dance before. No need to rehash it here.

[White Crane Feather]

Are you saying that spirit is all of those things? If so, I simply ask, prove it. But you and I have done that dance before. No need to rehash it here.

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

It's quantifiable

A certain percentage of people see spirits

It's testable

I can run polls and gather statistics about how many people them see and what attributes they have.

It's observable

I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Seeker79

[Imaginarynumber1]

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

Not what is meant by predictability. More like, if condition x is satisfied, then y will occur.

It's quantifiable

A certain percentage of people see spirits

Spirit itself, not perception of spirit. What is it made of, how does it react to its environment, what effect does x have on it?

It's testable

I can run polls and gather statistics about how many people them see and what attributes they have.

But then you are not testing spirit itself, but again perception of it.

It's observable

I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

So how can I see spirits? Seriously. I'm not being factious here. I must admit I often see you talking about OOBE I am a bit curious. PM me about it.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[ChrLzs]

I understand the viewpoints going back and forth, but have yet to see an answer to my question from any of the skeptics or non-believers.

I think I'm in that category, so...

Can you give an example of a type of evidence that would be shown to you that might change your mind.

A peer reviewed scientific paper appearing in a recognised journal.

A situation like the one you suggest, where the event was captured by more than one camera and a number of credible witnesses (including 'provenance' on the cameras and witnesses to ensure no collusion was involved.

Why, I'd even consider a successful payout from the JREF Challenge...

...while certainly anything we see on TV can be post produced, or even false altogether, what would it take for you to convince you?

There are some journalists and many scientists that I would have little hesitation believing if they were genuinely convinced of the proof. That said, even some of the finest minds go over the edge at times, and not just from old age/senility - but then it's pretty obvious.

For sake of argument, and is a hypothetical now being introduced here, what if this happened. A video of the most incredible offering was shot of a proposed ghost. The ghost was both witnessed by several people AND captured on video. The video was taken to an engineer (like in my main example above) and that forensic engineer confirmed that the video was not tampered with, was not a video composite by a computer or other FX trick and therefore confirmed as authentic.

Problem - ask any high end video expert and s/he will tell you that given the extent of today's technology pretty much anything can be faked in almost any way. They could not possibly 100% guarantee a video's authenticity, let alone the content of it. So unless the witnesses and other provenance was all credible and it was all watertight, it could still be a hoax.

Its not like you can run the video before a panel of scientists who can offer more input... they are merely now second hand witness to a video and can only comment on it.

But these situations can be quite complex to unravel, so why wouldn't you throw every expert at it that you can? And to be brutally honest, if this was a one-off incident that was not testable or repeatable.. why is it signficant? It is merely unexplained.

The witnesses' testimony from the video taped event will be thrown out as the above skeptic pointed out...the event, even though filmed (or reportedly) was their own "perception" which you shown can be flawed as human perception can and will be....even though it might be some type of mass halucination? I see what you say with dreams, they are real, but their content??

But that's the whole point - if it is testable and repeatable, and/or if it is unshakably 'proven' by adding up all the testimony and the evidence and it is all watertight and credible.. it WILL be accepted.

Thing is... THAT HASN'T HAPPENED! Nothing even vaguely close to it has happened, and that's why folks like seeker strenuously avoid the simple request to SHOW THE BEST EVIDENCE TO DATE. They don't want to go there, because the 'best' is unbelievably shaky, and wouldn't pass first muster in a court or a scientific forum...

Regardless, the skeptic throws that out as flawed, since human perception is not a valid piece of evidence.

Quite rightly, because we as a race have a cultural bias towards believing in the afterlife, in ghosts, etc, and movies and almost every aspect of our culture plays on that and promotes it mercilessly. So it's little wonder you will get lots of anecdotes. And that means you MUST NOT accept those anecdotes as being lots of evidence. It's the QUALITY that matters.

I would turn this around - what, in the eyes of the true believers, is 'good enough'? Every anecdote, every story? Which ones are the worthy ones, and on what basis do you select them? How do you recognise hoaxes and charlatans, or do you think they don't exist?

Me, I apply science and logic and look for normal explanations - I work from the known to try the explain the unknown. To date, I'm not seeing anything that makes me think twice, but I'm ready to see it.. So believers, what is the best evidence? Don't just give me a Youtube video - explain in your own words why your example is THE ONE, and what expertise you have applied to reach your conclusion..