what would you ask a skeptic?

[Rafterman]

Yes!! I am talking about this kind of thing. It could be a virus, just as it could be some form of animal, or air algae for all we know. This is exactly what I mean! Just because we don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. For example bacteria or viruses, we don't see but we know they are alive, they would not spread if they weren't. It may not use the air at all it may use dark matter like Seeker says. Who knows?? We don't!! So we need to find out, I think instead of casting it as evil demons or dead people, or mental disorders we should run all experiments possible. I don't think Einstein started his experiments with his mind made up about the outcome.

I'm fine with looking to science to prove the existance of things we don't know or understand.

What I have a problem with are folks who immediately jump to the unknown to explain an experience when they haven't even stopped to consider the dozens of perfectly rational explanations right there in front of them. I believe the term is "closed minded believer".

[FlyingAngel]

Instead of listening and say we don't know yet / it's not yet to be found exist, why skeptics love to argue and confidently affirm that something don't exist / can't exist.

[Brian Topp]

Instead of listening and say we don't know yet / it's not yet to be found exist, why skeptics love to argue and confidently affirm that something don't exist / can't exist.

There are certain people in the world who rather accept/create/believe in something completely illogical when there is a logical explanation that has been tried and tested with the same or similar results.

[ShadowofaDoubt]

Well I tend to try to combine these things of the spirit and some of the not so well understood scientific discoveries. Dark matter does flow through us, fills us. It affects us through gravity as far as we can tell. No reason to rule it out. The "Higgs field" does the same thing if it is real. So do nutrenos. All these things amoung others constantly flowinG. In and around us. We we think we gave found it all..,. I think probably not.

What makes you think that dark matter/ neutrinos/ higgs field flows through us or fills us? I mean, neutrinos shoot right through us, but they certainly don't fill us. As for the other two, I have know idea why you would think that.

[ShadowofaDoubt]

Not necesarily. Only in recent human history did we even discover things like viruses or bacteria. Life is information. There may very well be informational constructs ( life) existing in the deep places of reality. Using say dark matter or something else as a medium to carry their information through time. If these things are not made out of things that react to particles in our reality as we know it they may be quite undectectable. Just white board talk of course, but it could be that we are one of those life forms living in symbiosis with a biological one.

That's interesting, and if so, there would be no way to experience or witness them making them pretty irrelevant to any thoughts about ghosts, hauntings,shadow people, etc...

[Nadia B.]

For me, it would be a two-step process.

First, I need evidence that the phenomena exists as something other than a psychological issue. In order to be convinced of that, I would need a repeatable way of triggering the phenomena. If ghosts exist, something is causing them to appear. Discover what that trigger is, so that ghosts can be made to appear on cue, and that would be proof that the phenomena of apparitions does indeed exist objectively, separate from human psychology.

Second, we need to determine what, exactly, a ghost is. For this, it think it would be a matter of research into the ghost encountered. If most of the ghosts have documented lives, it would be evidence that ghosts are departed spirits that used to be alive. However, there would also have to be tests to determine whether they are one and the same spirit, or a reflection, or some other variation of that. In other words, do we all have ghosts inside of us right now, or is a ghost just some sort of spiritual back-up in case of a system failure?

As to your first, ghosts can be different things. You have your imprint activity where the "spirit" is just an imprint and not intelligent. This could certainly be captured if one could figure out the pattern of it. Another kind though, the kind most tend to talk about, are the intelligent spirits. Ex-humans, if you will. Humans are contrary by nature, lol. They don't all respond on demand, and some don't even WANT to be explored and talked about. It's like taking a person and putting them in a petting zoo/lab. Who would want to be that pet? This is why it gets to be so tough to find/document/experiment.

Something to think about, though. Maybe Aquatus has the answer to this. This is where I'm going to sound stupid, because I am NOT a scientific genius. Take the periodic table. Mendeleev had vacant spots where he knew there were elements missing, but were yet to be discovered. He gave these temporary names and spots, and sure enough, years later, at least one was found? Isn't this a situation of knowing something exists, we just haven't found it yet?

[The Silver Thong]

I have several questions for I guess you could say staunch skeptics. Like Nadia, I have been wittnes to things that I probably would doubt had I not had the experience. So I am a bit of a skeptic myself and require personal evidence.

My 1st question would be if you the "Skeptic" experienced saw something plain as day. How would you react?

Why is it that some skeptics cannot take into acount the limitations of scientific methodology, technology, and understanding?

Why is it that most skeptics stop asking questions once they think they have an answer?

Why is it that some skeptics can't seem to handle the fact that their world view is not fact.?

Let's start with that.

I would eliminate all other possibilities such as my mind may be in jeopardy and I had a hallucination or maybe a brain tumor.

I would look to the limits of science to explain what happened and if there was no explanation I would not make one up to solve the unanswered.

Skeptics don't stop asking questions. However we will not chase our tail in futile attempt to explain something that has no explanation hence we keep asking questions with out pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

Skeptics have the most grounded world view possible. Can you imagine a bunch of people running around mad because they don't understand the world they live in.

[The Silver Thong]

id ask them if they wanted a coffee

Two sugar with cream please, not that powdered stuff either

[Non sequitur]

Two sugar with cream please, not that powdered stuff either

Aww geez your a good sort

[The Silver Thong]

Aww geez your a good sort

You are going to be fun I have to say you have me curious. As far as good, me not really. I happen to be what one would call in the world of dungeons and dragons neutral

[Non sequitur]

You are going to be fun I have to say you have me curious. As far as good, me not really. I happen to be what one would call in the world of dungeons and dragons neutral

i like dragons....they're incredible

[TheDeadAreWatching]

You are going to be fun I have to say you have me curious. As far as good, me not really. I happen to be what one would call in the world of dungeons and dragons neutral

Is that 3.5 true neutral or 4.0 neutral? there is a pretty big difference. lol

Edited April 6, 2011 by TheDeadAreWatching

[aquatus1]

I have several questions for I guess you could say staunch skeptics. Like Nadia, I have been wittnes to things that I probably would doubt had I not had the experience. So I am a bit of a skeptic myself and require personal evidence.

My 1st question would be if you the "Skeptic" experienced saw something plain as day. How would you react?

Skeptically. Prior to assuming that I am seeing something that has never been validated as existing, I would assume it is likely that I am seeing something that has been validated to exist. I would work from there to eliminate as many possible variables as I can till I have come to an acceptable set of probabilities.

Why is it that some skeptics cannot take into acount the limitations of scientific methodology, technology, and understanding?

I am not aware of any skeptics who do not. I am aware of more than one believer who assumes that a skeptic who does not include ghosts in their first set of variables must not understand the limitations of science. That leads me to conclude that it is more often believers rather than skeptics who are not aware of the limitations that exist.

Why is it that most skeptics stop asking questions once they think they have an answer?

The majority of the skeptics who do that do so for one of two reasons. The first is because the topic has been hashed out so many, many, times, that if no new information is presented (which is the case 99% of the time), there is no reason to change the answer. The second is, quite simply, that the topic doesn't interest them further than a quick evaluatory glance.

Why is it that some skeptics can't seem to handle the fact that their world view is not fact.?

No more so than believers, I would submit.

[aquatus1]

As to your first, ghosts can be different things. You have your imprint activity where the "spirit" is just an imprint and not intelligent. This could certainly be captured if one could figure out the pattern of it. Another kind though, the kind most tend to talk about, are the intelligent spirits. Ex-humans, if you will. Humans are contrary by nature, lol. They don't all respond on demand, and some don't even WANT to be explored and talked about. It's like taking a person and putting them in a petting zoo/lab. Who would want to be that pet? This is why it gets to be so tough to find/document/experiment.

Not really asking for an explanation. Just stating what it would take for me to believe ghosts were former humans.

Something to think about, though. Maybe Aquatus has the answer to this. This is where I'm going to sound stupid, because I am NOT a scientific genius. Take the periodic table. Mendeleev had vacant spots where he knew there were elements missing, but were yet to be discovered. He gave these temporary names and spots, and sure enough, years later, at least one was found? Isn't this a situation of knowing something exists, we just haven't found it yet?

Not quite, and that is actually the major problem.

See, science exist to explain phenomena. Electrical theory explains lightning. Relativity explains gravity. All of these phenomena are clear and obvious. Their existence is not in question. We may not know what electricity is, but it's existence is beyond question.

The phenomena of ghosts is not clearly and obviously in existence. We have no clue what triggers it, we have never seen definitive traces of it, and all the evidence that does exist can be duplicate by several known phenomena that affect the human mind. That is what makes the topic so difficult to deal with. It isn't matter of finding a theory that explains the phenomena; it is a matter of determining if there is any phenomena to explain in the first place.

Edited April 6, 2011 by aquatus1

[TheDeadAreWatching]

1. Skeptically. Prior to assuming that I am seeing something that has never been validated as existing, I would assume it is likely that I am seeing something that has been validated to exist. I would work from there to eliminate as many possible variables as I can till I have come to an acceptable set of probabilities.

2. I am not aware of any skeptics who do not. I am aware of more than one believer who assumes that a skeptic who does not include ghosts in their first set of variables must not understand the limitations of science. That leads me to conclude that it is more often believers rather than skeptics who are not aware of the limitations that exist.

3. The majority of the skeptics who do that do so for one of two reasons. The first is because the topic has been hashed out so many, many, times, that if no new information is presented (which is the case 99% of the time), there is no reason to change the answer. The second is, quite simply, that the topic doesn't interest them further than a quick evaluatory glance.

4. No more so than believers, I would submit.

1. I agree. Many are to eager to believe. That is when matrixing becomes a sighting.

2. Not trying to step on your toes aquatus1, but I think your opinion is just as bias as the person you are replying too. A person on either end of the spectrum can say the same thing. one side might like to think they have the upper hand, but that is just a superiority complex. Both sides will have blind extremists and both with have rational thinking people who have opinions based on what their life has taught them.

3. I agree, the same old arguments are boring, yet here we are, lol.

4. I agree

[Wickian]

This is my opinion on the matter of belief(I'm somewhere between an Atheist and and Agnostic).

Most skeptics who demand evidence are utterly incapable of ever becoming religious, even if undeniable proof were given. The entire purpose of faith is to believe in something that can't be proven, thus proving yourself worthy of the benefits of said beliefs. All being shown proof does is let you "know", not "believe". By demanding, and being given, proof you would sacrifice any hope of being accepted by whichever deity you would want to worship. In my opinion anyway.

I personally would rather the "end" go on being a mystery, it would take a lot the suspense out of dying if you knew what was going to happen. I would like to know if an afterlife could theoretically exist though. The first step in my opinion to discover this would be to determine if memories could be stored and/or transferred outside of the brain in a purely electrical/energy form without an artificial brain. If that can be scientifically proven, then there is a strong basis to conclude some sort of consciousness after death might be possible.

[Wickian]

Double post.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Wickian

[White Crane Feather]

I'm fine with looking to science to prove the existance of things we don't know or understand.

What I have a problem with are folks who immediately jump to the unknown to explain an experience when they haven't even stopped to consider the dozens of perfectly rational explanations right there in front of them. I believe the term is "closed minded believer".

Except that science stops when we refuse to look out and try to see what can be or we adopt unscientific paradimes that hold the very limited methodology back.

[White Crane Feather]

What makes you think that dark matter/ neutrinos/ higgs field flows through us or fills us? I mean, neutrinos shoot right through us, but they certainly don't fill us. As for the other two, I have know idea why you would think that.

Think what? There is nothing conclusive here all white board talk. You don't think dark matter is not integrated inbetween every molocule of your body? Our entire galaxy is in a cloud of it, and it is five times more abundant than normal matter. If the Higgs field exist it also fills you in a similar manner.

[White Crane Feather]

That's interesting, and if so, there would be no way to experience or witness them making them pretty irrelevant to any thoughts about ghosts, hauntings,shadow people, etc...

Hmmm not if you have a purly unmovable materialistic paradime. Still yet, there may be ways to interact with these through certain states of conciousness. Consider if you will entanglement "spooky action at a distance". There is no known what for an observation to affect a particles entangled twin when it is on the other side of the universe either, but we know it can happen. There are theories of course there are always theories.

[White Crane Feather]

Skeptically. Prior to assuming that I am seeing something that has never been validated as existing, I would assume it is likely that I am seeing something that has been validated to exist. I would work from there to eliminate as many possible variables as I can till I have come to an acceptable set of probabilities.

I am not aware of any skeptics who do not. I am aware of more than one believer who assumes that a skeptic who does not include ghosts in their first set of variables must not understand the limitations of science. That leads me to conclude that it is more often believers rather than skeptics who are not aware of the limitations that exist.

The majority of the skeptics who do that do so for one of two reasons. The first is because the topic has been hashed out so many, many, times, that if no new information is presented (which is the case 99% of the time), there is no reason to change the answer. The second is, quite simply, that the topic doesn't interest them further than a quick evaluatory glance.

No more so than believers, I would submit.

1. How do you eliminate spirits, and asign probabilities. Assuming of course it's not the usual humbug orbs and junk which I have no intrest in giving credit to. ( the problem with most reductionists/materialists is that their paradime forces them to assign probabilities to things with no reason other than the paradime. This is not scientific, and the staunch beleiver is just as guilty)

2. I'll have to disagree with you there. Most skeptics.... Not the good ones of course. Seem to argue that science is capable of describing everything or predicting everything that can be. This is purely a faith in the methodology based on it's precieved success. Science cannot even predict life. Some things like life & conciousness are higher order informational constructs that cannot be predicted by a reductionist philosophy. The very nature of reductionist thinking does not allow the thinker to induce. Our current practice of science is nearly all reductionist. We will

miss higher constructs in this way of thinkink. I don't see beleivers ( although I heartily disagree with many of their paradimes as well) ending their thinking at the big Bang boundry, the planek or possible dimentional bounderies, they are quite willing in fact overly so to look past them.

3. Fair enough..... I do this also. But thats not really what I ment. Back to number 1. You see a spirit. You work through all the explanations you can come up with. Nothing makes sense, so you asign a probability that it was a hullucination. Done. Well what caused the hullucination? Why does anything that dosnt fit into the materidlists paradime always end up being a hullucination, false memory, or imagination. Sure some have these..... But that by no means that all do. The questions stop once the disbeliver reaches the boundries of their paradime. Ill ask again if this person is truelly being scientific, on what data do they asign likely hoods?

4. You dodged the question. Beleiver/disbeleiver friction should be set aside.

[White Crane Feather]

I would eliminate all other possibilities such as my mind may be in jeopardy and I had a hallucination or maybe a brain tumor.

I would look to the limits of science to explain what happened and if there was no explanation I would not make one up to solve the unanswered.

Skeptics don't stop asking questions. However we will not chase our tail in futile attempt to explain something that has no explanation hence we keep asking questions with out pulling a rabbit out of the hat.

Skeptics have the most grounded world view possible. Can you imagine a bunch of people running around mad because they don't understand the world they live in.

Interesting. Stoping once you can't explaine something. Really? Why wouldn't the final explanation not be exactly what it apeared to be? Isn't that what deduction is? Sounds like a paradime boundry to me. That's not very scientific at all. More like faith in your world view.

As in skeptics your are referring to materialists? in fact no one has the answer ultimate reality, so that is exactly what we are doing.

Grounded? you mean like claiming to only accept science yet makeing unscientific judgements and then when all

explanations fail a stuburn unwillingness to beleive what one sees with his own eyes. Ok. If you say so.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Seeker79

[White Crane Feather]

I have to aplogize. I don't have multi quoting abiities on my iPhone. It's tough to keep up with large multi quotes adressing different points.

[ShadowofaDoubt]

Think what? There is nothing conclusive here all white board talk.You don't think dark matter is not integrated inbetween every molocule of your body? Our entire galaxy is in a cloud of it, and it is five times more abundant than normal matter. If the Higgs field exist it also fills you in a similar manner.

That's possibly true... maybe. It's pretty inconclusive. I can't say I subscribe to it, being that there haven't been any repeatable tests confirming that hypothesis. My concern here is, what is the relation to dark matter and Higgs fields to ghosts and hauntings? If dark matter really does make up, like, 80% of the universe and it is a form of "extraordinary matter" where's the relation?

I know you keep saying that it's "white board talk", but is that just a license to throw out any largely misunderstood or hypothetical, spooky sounding science term and suppose there's some link? It's like dropping quantum physics as a possible explanation. There's no reason tho think any of the ideas mentioned have ANYTHING to do with the paranormal. The idea that they are currently not fully understood does not infer theres a common link between the two.

[AquaMerina]

I would ask a true skeptic,

How can one verify on the Internet, if someone is a real scientist with verifiable credentials who works for a credible institution, lab etc?

Like Jay Alfred for example. This person seems to have a lot of articles about bio plasma, but I'm not sure how or where he got his info from.

I am highly intrigued by QM and the studies involving "consciousness", but some of things I find, I can't always tell if they are legit science, or legit BS.