109 replies to this topic

[Ecto76]

In the end I investigate to help people, help the community and I have fun doing it. That's what it should be about!

There should be a boundary of mutual respect among both. As much as I ask skeptics to avoid hostility and give them the benefit of the doubt ( long as its rational ) I also ask believers to stay real, be simple and remain objective as well as listen to alternative options.

[P4UL N0153]

Ecto76, on 30 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Skeptics are entitled to their own opinion and beliefs. Believers are entitled to their own opinion and beliefs. It does not make us crazy or irrational. I just ask if you plan to reply to a believer's post... do it to help them.

I have to admit there are not enough amateurs doing the right thing. This is because they are not being properly educated. I have learned from years of practice. I have learned the do's and don'ts. Sometimes I have learned the hard way. It takes hard work and dedication. You must research and research as much as you can.

Sakari... you are absolutely right when you talk about how we approach our clients with our analysis. You have to be extremely careful. A person's psychology can come into play. If you do not diagnose your case properly, you may scare them more. Therefore, you defeated the purpose of the initial investigation. I have dealt with hundreds of clients. Due to the many years I have been investigating, I know the differences to those who are reaching out, scared or just want to know about it etc; My main focus is always to help the mindset of the client. Not to prove or disprove their claims. Even though my methods are by disproving first. I think that should be the most important thing.

But my topic is not about what we should or not do. My topic is building the mutual respect between both skeptics and believers. There are different types of skeptics and believers. Be here to help someone, don't insult them. It is a touchy subject, kill it with kindness.

Hi,

The problem with this issue, is that there is a fundamental difference in the way that the two "groups" think about issues. Believer use words like "opinion, beliefs, personal experiences, eyewitness accounts". Skeptics use words like "evidence, proof, probability, verifiable".

Skeptics posts in threads as a counterbalance to dogma and word of mouth authority. It is simply how a skeptics mind works. We hear something presented as fact, and instantly think, "Show me. Show me how you got to that conclusion, and how you ruled out any other options."  

To a believer, nothing beyond what they have personally experienced is required to subscribe to a certain standard of criteria to make assertions of fact, regardless of what the empirical evidence may or may not suggest, as all such avenues are closed as being invalidated by the believers own understanding of events. Following this logic, there are many armchair authorities on the paranormal, because they can always fall back on the tried and true reasoning that because they believe and have had the personal experience, no external validation is necessary. This leads to people making all sorts of claims about mystical "truths".

It is when someting passes from the realm of discussion to authority that the believer finds themselves unable to argue the facts, because they don't deal in facts, they deal in beliefs. The other glaring issue is that beliefs are by their nature deeply held and personal. When anyone, skeptic or believer, has their deep seated persoanl beliefs challenged, it is only natural to become fiercely defensive, as most times, it is what we base our daily lives on. This makes it a personal issue from the start for the believer. There is no objectivity for a believer, because all issue are internal and personally held. When seeking external validation for an internally held belief, one finds there is no external validation to be found.

Last point I'll try to make from a skeptics POV, is that discussions can take on many facets. A discussion can start out as a story or a sharing of an experience, and grow and evolve naturally to the point where someone may eventually inquire as to how the original story teller came to their conclusions. This questions invariably leads to the questions of how one defines criteria for acceptance. If one tries to convince others to believe as they do, simply by authoratative statement "You can't question me because I was there and you weren't", or by using logical fallacies "Can you prove this didn't happen (i.e. asking one to prove a negative, which is impossible)", then it is no longer a discussion and has become a series of declarations of belief parading as fact. Regardless of support by other believers; it does not negate that no facts have been presented, simply observations and belief.

Both groups seek understanding, skeptics prefer to see what evidence supports or disproves a theory. Believers use dogma and mysticism. The two are diametrically opposed.

[Ecto76]

Pauly Dangerously, on 30 April 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

Hi,

The problem with this issue, is that there is a fundamental difference in the way that the two "groups" think about issues. Believer use words like "opinion, beliefs, personal experiences, eyewitness accounts". Skeptics use words like "evidence, proof, probability, verifiable".

Skeptics posts in threads as a counterbalance to dogma and word of mouth authority. It is simply how a skeptics mind works. We hear something presented as fact, and instantly think, "Show me. Show me how you got to that conclusion, and how you ruled out any other options."  

To a believer, nothing beyond what they have personally experienced is required to subscribe to a certain standard of criteria to make assertions of fact, regardless of what the empirical evidence may or may not suggest, as all such avenues are closed as being invalidated by the believers own understanding of events. Following this logic, there are many armchair authorities on the paranormal, because they can always fall back on the tried and true reasoning that because they believe and have had the personal experience, no external validation is necessary. This leads to people making all sorts of claims about mystical "truths".

It is when someting passes from the realm of discussion to authority that the believer finds themselves unable to argue the facts, because they don't deal in facts, they deal in beliefs. The other glaring issue is that beliefs are by their nature deeply held and personal. When anyone, skeptic or believer, has their deep seated persoanl beliefs challenged, it is only natural to become fiercely defensive, as most times, it is what we base our daily lives on. This makes it a personal issue from the start for the believer. There is no objectivity for a believer, because all issue are internal and personally held. When seeking external validation for an internally held belief, one finds there is no external validation to be found.

Last point I'll try to make from a skeptics POV, is that discussions can take on many facets. A discussion can start out as a story or a sharing of an experience, and grow and evolve naturally to the point where someone may eventually inquire as to how the original story teller came to their conclusions. This questions invariably leads to the questions of how one defines criteria for acceptance. If one tries to convince others to believe as they do, simply by authoratative statement "You can't question me because I was there and you weren't", or by using logical fallacies "Can you prove this didn't happen (i.e. asking one to prove a negative, which is impossible)", then it is no longer a discussion and has become a series of declarations of belief parading as fact. Regardless of support by other believers; it does not negate that no facts have been presented, simply observations and belief.

Both groups seek understanding, skeptics prefer to see what evidence supports or disproves a theory. Believers use dogma and mysticism. The two are diametrically opposed.

As I agree with mostly what you said and it was well said and explained!

However I do not agree with the term "Authority". No one has the "Authority". The only way I will accept authority is if a person had the credentials of a scientist making a factual statement.

[P4UL N0153]

Ecto76, on 30 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

As I agree with mostly what you said and it was well said and explained!

However I do not agree with the term "Authority". No one has the "Authority". The only way I will accept authority is if a person had the credentials of a scientist making a factual statement.

Fair enough.

For clarification, by "authority" I mean someone making a statement of fact before addressing any type of mundane answer.

A classic example is a post which comes up nearly constantly where someone first claims to be skeptic, tells us a story that is easily explained by mundane events, asks for help, then proceeds to discount and deride any logical explanation based purely on what they "know". They usually read something like this...

DEMONHUNTER2012UFOSPIRITWARLORD said: "Hi all you folks! I am a skeptic by nature but this has me really freaked out! About two years ago I was sitting in my (parents) living room, and all of a sudden, my family dog stared at the corner of the room and growled! It really scared me and I was up all night because of all the strange noises! It never happened again until last night and I'm really freaked! What could it have been!?"

Naturally, a skeptic will say:

Pauly D: Umm, maybe it was a mouse?

Invariably the response comes back...

DEMONHUNTER2012UFOSPIRITWARLORD: YOU ******* IDIOT! I KNOW WHAT A MOUSE IS, DO YOU THINK I'M STUPID!? IF YOU DON"T BELIEVE IN GHOSTS WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE!?

I know you think that I am being fecetious, I am not. This happens, all the time.

SO, this is what I mean by authority. We are asked to believe that this person is haunted by _______, even though they provide no evidence other than a simple story. We are supposed to take it on authority that everything they say is true, without this person ever having to back it up.

[Chrlzs]

Ecto76, on 30 April 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

The only way I will accept authority is if a person had the credentials of a scientist making a factual statement.

That then begs the question - are you qualified to perform these investigations?  Can we see one of the investigations (feel free to remove all names and indentifiying information) so that we can consider that and also see if you are fulfilling your stated goals to 'help people, help the community and have fun doing it'?

I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but I have to observe that some of the 'investigations' I've seen presented here by others have made me shudder...  As my Mum used to cliche, "it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.."

[JesseCuster]

If someone doesn't want to hear or read dissenting opinion to their opinions and beliefs, they shouldn't be posting them on a public web forum that anyone can sign up for and join in the discussion.

The worst forums I've ever visited are those where there is an active attempt to dissuade anyone from disagreeing with the subject the forum is promoting (creationist forums are notorious for this).   This is one of the few web forums I regularly visit and post on precisely because all opinions are invited and allowed and only obnoxious behaviour or insults aren't tolerated.

When I do post to a thread, it's because I feel I have an opinion worth voicing or because I had something constructive to say.  I've lost count of the amount of threads I've responded to, just to point out that the person who has found a ghost/UFO/city on Mars has actually found a bunch of pixellated JPEG artefacts, random picture noise, artefacts caused by zooming in on where Google Mars images have been stitched together badly, etc.  I'm no expert or professional in these matters, but I have done enough amateur digital photography, digital photo editing, Google Mars and Earth exploration, etc. to know what I'm looking at in these cases.

I have also responded to correct the chorus of claims from those who immediately claim a UFO or ghost images have been obviously Photoshopped when it's apparent that it's actually obvious and well-known JPEG artefacting or something similar, because it's not fair for a bunch of people who don't know what they are on about to accuse people genuinely looking for an explanation for a photo they took or found online of being dishonest and frauds.

I also like to call out so-called experts who claim to be experts in photography, to be experts at recognising digitally altered images, who would know if what they were looking at was really JPEG artefacts, etc. These people really annoy me because I've seen a couple of posters on this forum (one of whom claimed to be a photography professional, who took people's moneys offering ghost tours, and who made the bizarre claim that because of modern lens grinding technologies, digital cameras can see further into the electromagnetic spectrum and thus can see ghosts invisible to the naked eye).   No photography professional or even vaguely knowledgable amateur would make such blatantly false claims.

That kind of thing needs to be called out from both sides (the skeptics who shout "obvious Photoshop!" and the self proclaimed paranormal experts who shout "I know all about digital imaging, my expertise tells me this is not JPEG artefacts / Photoshop / sensor noise!) when all it takes is a small bit of knowledge to know they are full of it and it's not fair to the genuinely curious who might be easily persuaded that such people are experts and take then as authorities on the subject.

Edited by Archimedes, 01 May 2012 - 12:11 AM.

[Hilander]

When I disagree I try not to be insulting or demeaning about it. That's where people will start to take offense and I don't blame them. I have seen a ghost and I don't care if a soul on here believes me.  Even thought I have experienced the paranormal myself I still have a hard time believing a lot of the claims I have read.

[Ecto76]

@ Chrizs...

This is a serious hobby. There is no such thing as having credentials when investigating. Anyone can investigate. Would going to school for a degree in Science, psychology or parapsychology help? Nah it wouldn't hurt. Which is why I disagree with those who use the term authority. Our team volunteers to help people through research, study and using as many scientific methods as possible. And no I will not share client information due to client confidentiality. What I can tell you is that I have been investigating for almost 15 years. Next year marks my 15th year. I think experience can be enough to deem that I am quite capable of conducting investigations. Besides... I am not here to prove myself to anyone. This is not what the topic is about.

Edited by Ecto76, 01 May 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[orangepeaceful79]

When I post here at UM I generally am offering a skeptical viewpoint.  I find that in general my posts fall into a few categories.  There are a few subjects that I feel like I have a good knowledge/experience base in - such as topics involving anomalies created with digital cameras.  I'm a photography nut and have lots of experience and knowledge with and about digital cameras.  so often I find myself using this experience to help folks explain some of the odd images that show up with digital cams sometimes.

Another reason I post is when someone is obviously just making stuff up - just pulling bull**** out of their ass to explain this or that and hoping that nobody will call them on it.  I like being the person that asks them to cite their information or back it up somehow.  I think that we all have a responsibility on forums like this to be information police.  This is the internet for goodness sakes - anybody can say anything, and the relative anonymity of it makes it easy to spout BS.

The other reason I post as a skeptic is because I like facts.  Facts are the same for all of us, because they've been proven to be.  I like to think that somewhere there is a balanced, objective reality that all of us can connect with and share commonality.  Seeking factual information in the postings of others helps me to relate to what they are saying - to connect woth that common reality.  One of my favorite quotes is by Daniel Patrick Moynihan and it goes like this " you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."   I think this sums it up.  To achieve some semblance of order, facts should be proven and the same for everybody.

[Ecto76]

I've shared my videos and photos with others on here. I will not share any cases with anyone for the simple fact of client confidentiality. Its hard to explain an investigation without that info. I will go on saying that I do not claim myself to be any expert, authority or have a degree. As I said before, I do it to help people and the community by sharing the knowledge I have collected thus far with my experience. I think you can tell when people are posting bull and when someone is not posting bull. I am not posting bull. I just think the forums would be more fun without the insults, without the bickering and just exchanging information to expand our minds and learn better.

I always said, I am not afraid or against listening to alternative explanations. I always say sometimes just because we might capture something that cannot be explained doesn't always mean it is paranormal. We may have not discovered what it is yet. There could be a natural explanation that we have not found. If that makes any sense. Sorry... I am no grammar or English major! haha!

[_Only]

orangepeaceful79, on 01 May 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

Another reason I post is when someone is obviously just making stuff up - just pulling bull**** out of their ass to explain this or that and hoping that nobody will call them on it.  I like being the person that asks them to cite their information or back it up somehow.  I think that we all have a responsibility on forums like this to be information police.  This is the internet for goodness sakes - anybody can say anything, and the relative anonymity of it makes it easy to spout BS.

I have to admit, it gets a bit tiresome seeing the same people saying prove it, or back it up, but you did a good job reminding why it is necessary. Sure, there will still be perhaps hundreds of people who read the made up "facts" or story a person says here, and believe it, in turn molding their personal views. But challenging the person to back up or prove what they say helps some to see that maybe not all that they read here is worthy of molding their personal views.

Of course, there has to be a healthy balance between skepticism (in the B.S. detecting form you mention), and keeping an open mind. But, I know what you mean. Some people make it so easy to choose between the two.

[orangepeaceful79]

I think that there are times where my sarcasm steps out of bounds though and it is something that I have been striving to reign in.  I think that the discourse we enjoy here at UM is always at its best when a certain degree of decorum is upheld.

[Conrad Clough]

Heck, I believe in ghosts... the house I grew up in was haunted and I, and other members of my family, witnessed both apparitions and poltergeist activity first hand, yet I am still skeptical about a lot of the threads (and pictures) here, many people seem too ready to fall back to a paranormal explanation with out taking the time to explore more mundane explanations that might make more sense.

[CakeOrDeath]

Conrad, why would yo doubt other's wild claims when you yourself have experienced them?

[Conrad Clough]

CakeOrDeath, on 01 May 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Conrad, why would yo doubt other's wild claims when you yourself have experienced them?

I actually siad why in my previous post...

Quote

many people seem too ready to fall back to a paranormal explanation with out taking the time to explore more mundane explanations that might make more sense.

Arriving at the conclusion that the experience/event was paranormal in origin should be your last stop, after more conventional explanations fail, not the place you go first.