Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The way skeptics think


Im-postle-able

Recommended Posts

"Skeptics" and "Believers" are the same. They have a concieved idea of what the universe is anything that does not fit into thier rule set is not true. Can be said about anyone really. Skeptics do not look at things logicaly they look at things from the preconcieved idea that it isn't real, this is not logic. If you show them proof they will do thier utmost to make it fit into thier rule set. If you could actualy show these people a ghost they would either lose the plot or just say it was a mass halucination. If we looked at this logicaly we would have to sit on the boundary of belief and disbelief.

The key is to work out how these things could exist based on the principal that the human race (as a whole) does not know everything. This would rely on abstract logic. The ability to work in rule sets that are outwith that which is accepted as "real" but yet have the ability to find a common ground where these rules can co-exist. If this can not be done then the event is not real and is probably a mental mock up by the person reporting the event. Even the spirit world has rules and constraints and must fit in with the rules of our world. We need to discover these rules as we discover the laws of physics etc.

I have never been one for taking someone elses word that something is real or not. No one on the face of this world is more able than another to see the truth. Someone who says they have read all the books etc... does not make them an expert, only an expert on other peoples idea's and findings. The worrying thing is most self proclaimed "Experts" are not, believers and skeptics alike.

Edited by Lord Storm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Sporkling

    10

  • Shalott

    5

  • heinrich1858

    5

  • Im-postle-able

    4

"Skeptics" and "Believers" are the same. They have a concieved idea of what the universe is anything that does not fit into thier rule set is not true. Can be said about anyone really. Skeptics do not look at things logicaly they look at things from the preconcieved idea that it isn't real, this is not logic. If you show them proof they will do thier utmost to make it fit into thier rule set. If you could actualy show these people a ghost they would either lose the plot or just say it was a mass halucination. If we looked at this logicaly we would have to sit on the boundary of belief and disbelief.

The key is to work out how these things could exist based on the principal that the human race (as a whole) does not know everything. This would rely on abstract logic. The ability to work in rule sets that are outwith that which is accepted as "real" but yet have the ability to find a common ground where these rules can co-exist. If this can not be done then the event is not real and is probably a mental mock up by the person reporting the event. Even the spirit world has rules and constraints and must fit in with the rules of our world. We need to discover these rules as we discover the laws of physics etc.

I have never been one for taking someone elses word that something is real or not. No one on the face of this world is more able than another to see the truth. Someone who says they have read all the books etc... does not make them an expert, only an expert on other peoples idea's and findings. The worrying thing is most self proclaimed "Experts" are not, believers and skeptics alike.

Abstract Logic could also apply to the following problem. If there was a creator he would have to exist without being caused to exist or if A big bang then matter exist without it being caused to exist. Breaking the laws of physics , logic and just about anyting else.(Something cannot exist for an infinite amount of time or exist without being caused into existence)

Just like black holes who break all the rules. Or like space that will have no end to it (infinity). All these are signposts to say ( no SCREAM OUT LOUD) The impossible is possible and our oderly logical understanding of the universe is shattered by these things.

Just a thought on the Universe and all that. That being said logic is right almost all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All things are relative. I am not saying there are no rules. Abstract logic is still logic just used outside of our perceived rule structure. There are two sets of rules that we go by. Actual rules and perceived (understood) rules. You say that black holes break all the rules, in fact they break no rules at all, we just don’t understand the rules they work by or how their rules integrate into our understanding of the Universe. Exactly the same problem we face when questioning the spirit realm. A lot of our misunderstanding can be down to the name given to an event or object. Black hole being a perfect example. It is neither black nor is it a hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have blatently stolen this text, so don't pat me on the back for writing it. You can still be a sceptic and believe in the paranormal.

Open-Minded Skepticism

In our approach to paranormal research, it should be observed that no living person knows, with absolute certainty, what becomes of human or animal consciousness after the inevitable cessation of biological life. When someone insists they know what the after-life entails, is that contention based on faith (often with a convenient gram of science or archeology included?) Concerning out-of-body experiences & near-death experiences, while the reports are intriguing, keep in mind that these experiences always occured within a quite living brain. Or there wouldn't be a subject surviving to report them.

No one has ever offered irrefutable proof of an alien (otherworldly) encounter or abduction. There has never been produced substantial evidence of the existence of ape-like humanoids, or aquatic creatures resempling Plesiosaurs. Yet, enough along these lines has been reported, with sufficient consistency to arouse one's curiosity and perhaps warant extended investigation.

Remember that four hundred years before our time, split-personality disorder was a clear indication of demonic possession. Three hundred years ago the Giant Squid, now classified as Archituthus, was the legendary Kraken which pulled entire vessels into the briny depths. In 1867, over a hundred witnesses on the shore of the Indian Ocean observed such a creature doing just that to a small fishing boat. A century ago, the Komodo Dragon was an Indonesian myth. Also, the Coelacanth was regarded as having been extinct for some thirty million years, and lunar landings were the fiction of visionary authors such as Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. In our own, somewhat more enlightened age, it is accepted among physicists that even time travel is theoretically plausible. And consider that the very inception of the physical universe shines forth in utter defiance of any presently known science! Take the cosmic speculations of Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, mix well, and hope for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh here's to my sweet Satan.

The one whose little path would make me sad, whose power is Satan.

He will give those with him 666.

There was a little toolshed where he made us suffer, sad Satan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Skeptics" and "Believers" are the same. They have a concieved idea of what the universe is anything that does not fit into thier rule set is not true. Can be said about anyone really. Skeptics do not look at things logicaly they look at things from the preconcieved idea that it isn't real, this is not logic. If you show them proof they will do thier utmost to make it fit into thier rule set. If you could actualy show these people a ghost they would either lose the plot or just say it was a mass halucination. If we looked at this logicaly we would have to sit on the boundary of belief and disbelief.

The key is to work out how these things could exist based on the principal that the human race (as a whole) does not know everything. This would rely on abstract logic. The ability to work in rule sets that are outwith that which is accepted as "real" but yet have the ability to find a common ground where these rules can co-exist. If this can not be done then the event is not real and is probably a mental mock up by the person reporting the event. Even the spirit world has rules and constraints and must fit in with the rules of our world. We need to discover these rules as we discover the laws of physics etc.

Well this is where people get tripped up. I'll stop using the word skeptics & stat using science because it more aptly describes the methodology behind the skeptics/rationalists way of thinking.

The phrase "Skeptics and Believers are the same. They have a conceived idea of what the universe is anything that does not fit into their rule set is not true." is a nice catch phrase which in slight variations is parroted by believers in the science vs faith debates. It sounds nice and and on very simple examination it even sounds like it makes sense... BUT IT DOESN'T.

Sciences search for truth & knowledge is mostly rooted in Rationalism and Empiricism. These are only a framework for looking at the world, they don't restrict any idea regardless of how abstract or illogical the idea may seem. It leaves all options open for debate/testing and allows us to approach ideas with a "known good" measure for the question "is this true?".

The catch phrase used above makes it sound like if something is observed by a scientist which doesn't fit with their current knowledge of the universe then they will instantly say "not this CAN'T be true, i deny it instantly!"

THIS IS NOT HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS!

If this was the case.. human knowledge as we know it would NEVER advance!! The world would still be the center of the universe, medical treatments would still use leeches and talk of 'humors', and electricity, x-rays, particle physics, spectral analysis, quantum theory, the periodic table and computers WOULD NOT EXIST.

The CORE of the scientific method is to expand knowledge NOT deny it!! If a "thing" has a sound falsifiable theory, peer reviewed evidence, and all conclusions point to a previously "out of place" idea being true.. then people using the scientific method will say "this new thing which i previously didn't understand or believe in IS true"

Being able to change points of view based on valid evidence is what skeptics, rationalists and scientists are all about!!

Believers DON'T work this way. There is not structure for "knowing what is true"! There is no method to say.. "well this new idea contradicts my own, what would i expect to see to convince me that this new idea is true?". If their view of the universe of contradicted they staunchly defend their point of view simply.. "because". Whether it's ignorance, childhood brain washing, stary eyed views of fairy tales or an unhinged grip on reality a believer CANNOT and WILL NOT alter their point of view regardless of how many sound theories, advancements in knowledge, or demonstratively physical "proofs" that what they think is not correct.

Skeptics and Believers are very very different. Skeptics allow for free flowing of new ideas and happily adopt previously rejected ideas when evidence is given. Believers will never change their views regardless of how much evidence is given because most of the time, if they DID alter their view to accept the evidence then their WHOLE idea of the universe would fall apart & come crashing to the ground.

My view of the universe as a skeptic does not 100% reject supernatural points of view. My view simply takes into account that of all the diverse theories and demonstrated truths of this world none of them require a supernatural explanation for anything. And the fact that all of the supernatural events CORRECTLY investigated all of them have had perfectly normal natural world explanations discovered. This weight of evidence allows me to give an estimate of "truth" to supernatural claims... and taking into account that no evidence has ever been found for even the most basic & easily tested supernatural phenomenon i can allow a VERY SMALL chance of any new paranormal claim of being true.

A fantastic claim requires fantastic theories and evidence!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All things are relative. I am not saying there are no rules. Abstract logic is still logic just used outside of our perceived rule structure. There are two sets of rules that we go by. Actual rules and perceived (understood) rules. You say that black holes break all the rules, in fact they break no rules at all, we just don’t understand the rules they work by or how their rules integrate into our understanding of the Universe. Exactly the same problem we face when questioning the spirit realm. A lot of our misunderstanding can be down to the name given to an event or object. Black hole being a perfect example. It is neither black nor is it a hole.

My point exactly. Many natural laws are yet to be discovered. The only way to make sense of such things will be to go beyond logic as a form of mind. Just like logic is above instict. How this will work I am not sure. Sure apparently these things break rules but they are only following rules not yet discovered.

Many stern sceptics do not accept that there are rules still to be discovered. They only rely on what we have today which is the reason I said break the rules. But one thing is certains these thing defy logic and some new form of thinking will be neede to solve these problems. (Yogi's call this spiritual mind)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on earth do you define the "Correct" way to research and prove something that you have no real means of recording or detecting using current technology? The Sceptics seem to set the rules of proof and have made any form of proof debunc'able. Video, Pictures, Sound Recordings can all be easily faked so are not good proof, but hey!? Wait a minute! Thats the only thing we can use!! We are trapped in a cycle of proof - disproof due to our own technological limitations. So many fake reports mixed in with potentialy true reports does not help things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How on earth do you define the "Correct" way to research and prove something that you have no real means of recording or detecting using current technology? The Sceptics seem to set the rules of proof and have made any form of proof debunc'able. Video, Pictures, Sound Recordings can all be easily faked so are not good proof, but hey!? Wait a minute! Thats the only thing we can use!! We are trapped in a cycle of proof - disproof due to our own technological limitations. So many fake reports mixed in with potentialy true reports does not help things.

There are many truths. My truth , your truth and the real truth(is there something like this).

Science has done well. Eventually they will come to the border which logic cannot cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is where people get tripped up. I'll stop using the word skeptics & stat using science because it more aptly describes the methodology behind the skeptics/rationalists way of thinking.

I find that rather constricting to suggest, even generalise that only skeptics equate to a rationalists way of thinking. That's a rather bold statement to make :blink:

Believers DON'T work this way. There is not structure for "knowing what is true"! There is no method to say.. "well this new idea contradicts my own, what would i expect to see to convince me that this new idea is true?". If their view of the universe of contradicted they staunchly defend their point of view simply.. "because". Whether it's ignorance, childhood brain washing, stary eyed views of fairy tales or an unhinged grip on reality a believer CANNOT and WILL NOT alter their point of view regardless of how many sound theories, advancements in knowledge, or demonstratively physical "proofs" that what they think is not correct.

It's nonsense to make such a general sweeping statement. How about just plain old personal or group experience, in experiencing something that just can not be explained by science Yet?. It happens..

Skeptics and Believers are very very different. Skeptics allow for free flowing of new ideas and happily adopt previously rejected ideas when evidence is given. Believers will never change their views regardless of how much evidence is given because most of the time, if they DID alter their view to accept the evidence then their WHOLE idea of the universe would fall apart & come crashing to the ground.

Not really, personally speaking for myself as a believer, i have often changed, modified, re evaluated my views of the universe and it's complex workings. I see every experience as a learning curve and giving something new to explore and find out about.

How on earth do you define the "Correct" way to research and prove something that you have no real means of recording or detecting using current technology? The Sceptics seem to set the rules of proof and have made any form of proof debunc'able. Video, Pictures, Sound Recordings can all be easily faked so are not good proof, but hey!? Wait a minute! Thats the only thing we can use!! We are trapped in a cycle of proof - disproof due to our own technological limitations. So many fake reports mixed in with potentialy true reports does not help things.

Well said Lord Storm, my thoughts exactly :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many truths. My truth , your truth and the real truth(is there something like this).

Science has done well. Eventually they will come to the border which logic cannot cross.

I don't understand. There can only be one truth.

Anway, I see it like this. While science can sometimes be wrong, in order for some type of phenomenon to be commonly accepted as a truth,it does have to be accepted and repeatedly tested by science in order for it to be accepted as fact. When science does make a mistake, it's usually because the technology has not been invented to discover the truth yet. However, everything in the universe has the potential to be explained by science.

This is why I believe that believers have more to prove than skeptics. The skeptics, in this sense, do represent the logical side of the coin as anything paranormal, by definition, has not yet been explained or proven by science. Ghosts, demons, etc. logically cannot exist in our universe because of the laws of science. When a person dies, his or her bodies decomposes, the nutrients are returned to the soil, and so begins the cycle of life. Ghosts as souls left to roam the Earth or leftover energy really is not a possibility as far as science is concerned. Therefore, thse who believe in such things have a lot of convincing, proving to do - not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't understand. There can only be one truth.

Just pointing out the many points of view and that a persons point of view is their truth. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pointing out the many points of view and that a persons point of view is their truth. :)

Nah there is a way the world is. I myself probably hold many erroneous beliefs about the world. I freely admit to being an imperfect recorder and analyser of existence. Sometimes we are closer to the truth with our beliefs and sometimes we are very far away from it. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just pointing out the many points of view and that a persons point of view is their truth. :)

I disagree. There is only one truth. Because a person has an opinion about the way the world is, does not make it fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I disagree. There is only one truth. Because a person has an opinion about the way the world is, does not make it fact.

Ever saw an accident and asked the people what happened. All the eye witnesses viewed it from different angles and thus have a different opinion on what happened some of what happende might have been obstructed from their view.

All reality even scientific fact is a little subjective 10% subjective and 90% real .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.