The Paranormal is it Fake?

[Mr Walker]

According to the OP , Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins didn't make a claim (or if he did the OP did not mention it ) so he had no reason to produce evidence, whereas the scholar to prove that it was true ,should have produced evidence to support his claim,.which in my humble opinion is fantasy but in your case knowing how you have a propensity to fantasy ,you may have evidentiary evidence to support the claim which you could share with us

Please don't go into one of your sagas involving platypus ,dogs .walls etc

fullywired :whistle:

Tha tdoesnt real adress my question why extraordinary proofs?

Surely ordinary proofs whould be enough to prove or disprove the point.

Oh i agree with you in this case It concerns a belief statement and is thus unprovable either way. The scholar can't prove he is right and dawkins cannot prove he is wrong. That is WHY the concept remains amenable to human belief. Now a nice live video feed accompanied by a dozen witness statements would help, but in the modern era would not constitute proof. But if I was there and saw it happen, i would know one way or the other. There is a problem with winged horses. The wing and musculature development required to fly is problematic in a creature with a horse's, biology/physiology. But of course belief is not bound by reality. I do wonder if a human could have ridden one of the large pterosaurs, or if the extra weight would have prevented the animal from flying

When i was a kid i did a number of experiments trying to fly, with helium filled ballons and large albatrosses, but couldnt make any definitive progress. I had a lot more success with modified parachutes, hang gliders, and rockets. Had my first hanglider flight about 13, and before that some parachute jumps and also paragliding behind a ski boat.

The rockets were a success in shooting beetles quite a distance and taking aerial photos from a couple of hundred metres up in the air, but the bigger we made them, the less effective they became, until a two meter model failed to take off, and burned a large circular hole in the centre of the town oval ,as it whizzed around on the ground like a giant catherine wheel.

See. Nothing about platypi, dogs or walls.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Mr Walker

[fullywired]

Tha tdoesnt real adress my question why extraordinary proofs?

Surely ordinary proofs whould be enough to prove or disprove the point.

.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi,

On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

[Mr Walker]

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

Interesting. It doesnt realy seem they are asking for extraordinary standards of proof, just stating a fairly self evident fact, that an extraordinary claim will, in its nature, require proofs which must also be extraordinary .

Eg. if i claim i can fly, and do so before witnesses cameras etc, my proof is not of an extraordinary standard, but the "fact of my flying" is an extraordinary proof, because a human flying IS extraordinary.

[fullywired]

Interesting. It doesnt realy seem they are asking for extraordinary standards of proof, just stating a fairly self evident fact, that an extraordinary claim will, in its nature, require proofs which must also be extraordinary .

Eg. if i claim i can fly, and do so before witnesses cameras etc, my proof is not of an extraordinary standard, but the "fact of my flying" is an extraordinary proof, because a human flying IS extraordinary.

Interesting. It doesnt realy seem they are asking for extraordinary standards of proof, just stating a fairly self evident fact, that an extraordinary claim will, in its nature, require proofs which must also be extraordinary .

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

was I saying anything different?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Are you saying a flying horse is not an extraordinary claim and requires no extraordinary evidence?????

Edited August 3, 2013 by fullywired

[Frank Merton]

The statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is not a law of science or rule of logic, but no more than a rule of thumb, similar to Occam's Razor. If someone believes something and you wish to convince them otherwise, it probably won't succeed to just say that there is insufficient evidence, even though that may be true. Lots of things exist for which there is little or no evidence. People who believe without evidence are of course fools, but that is their problem. Just don't let them teach science.

[coldethyl]

I take back everything I said in this topic, and others.....

The Paranormal is real.

All of it.

Hey you've proved your quote. At least something was proven.

It is proven that some people don't believe in science or the scientific method and like to beat a dead horse.

^^^^^^^^^^

My contribution, since I usually just get a smart alec comment and questioned if there's anything I want to contribute to the thread. Some ppl shouldn't read so fast they skip the contribution.

[Frank Merton]

It's not that we read too fast; it's that we don''t read at all. (Is that smart-aleck enough)?

Everyone gives lip service to science and the scientific method. I dare say no one really knows what it is, not even scientists. It is a major branch of philosophy on which there is a lot of argument.

I never actually saw anyone beating a dead horse. I understand the image, and long ago it was no doubt on a long list of English sayings for me to memorize.

[Mr Walker]

Interesting. It doesnt realy seem they are asking for extraordinary standards of proof, just stating a fairly self evident fact, that an extraordinary claim will, in its nature, require proofs which must also be extraordinary .

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

was I saying anything different?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Are you saying a flying horse is not an extraordinary claim and requires no extraordinary evidence?????

That simple english sentence has two separate possibilities. First that, for example, "gravity is non constant is such an extraordinary statement that it requires proofs beyond the ordinary" Or secondly that "because the constancy of gravity is the ordinary condition we experience, then ANY proof that gravity is non constant is quite extraordinary."

So no, a flying horse, in itself only requires "ordinary" standards of proof, but because a flying horse is extraordinary, then by association the proofs for it then BECOME extraordinary. 200 years ago a flying aeroplane would have been extraordinary and any proofs of its existence would have been extraordinary at that time.

SO a flying horse really only requires the ordinary/ normal evicdences for its existence, but also because a flying horse is/will be an extrordinary thing if discovered, then the evidences for it also BECOME in them selves extra (or beyond ) the ordinary

My arguement is that no matter how unusual any thing is, it only requires the same consistent proofs/evidences as anything usual. Proof is proof. Evidence is evidence. Real is real. How we feel about the possibilty of something has no correlation to its potential for actual existence or indeed its probability for existence With my apologies for bringing it up again, the historical case of the platypu illustrates this

The evidences for the existence of an animal such as a platapus are quite ordinary, but the animal when discovered was so extraordinary in the animal kingdom, that those evidences became extraordinary and resulted in the re classification of animals and on a whole new understanding of animal life on earth. The discovery of a flying horse would do the same thing.

[coldethyl]

It's not that we read too fast; it's that we don''t read at all. (Is that smart-aleck enough)?

Everyone gives lip service to science and the scientific method. I dare say no one really knows what it is, not even scientists. It is a major branch of philosophy on which there is a lot of argument.

I never actually saw anyone beating a dead horse. I understand the image, and long ago it was no doubt on a long list of English sayings for me to memorize.

Well obviously you READ it or you couldn't REPLY to it.

[fullywired]

That simple english sentence has two separate possibilities. First that, for example, "gravity is non constant is such an extraordinary statement that it requires proofs beyond the ordinary" Or secondly that "because the constancy of gravity is the ordinary condition we experience, then ANY proof that gravity is non constant is quite extraordinary."

So no, a flying horse, in itself only requires "ordinary" standards of proof, but because a flying horse is extraordinary, then by association the proofs for it then BECOME extraordinary. 200 years ago a flying aeroplane would have been extraordinary and any proofs of its existence would have been extraordinary at that time.

...

200 years ago a flying aeroplane would have been extraordinary

No it wouldn't , the Montgolfier brothers had demonstrated that in 1783 but I have not heard of anyone demonstrating a flying horse ,if they have I apologize , however until they do ,it will require extraordinary evidence to satisfy me to it's veracity

You couldn't resist slipping the proverbial Platypus in could you?

fullywired

[bassai26]

well some studies say that it is just psychological but we are referring to millions of people that have their own unique stories of "paranormal" ,but it is better that someone shows up and bring a glass vial with a ghost inside it..

[Frank Merton]

Well obviously you READ it or you couldn't REPLY to it.

I was being more general; frankly I don't read most of the messages posted and I think that is the case with most of us. Even when I pick up a thread, I rarely read all the messages but only the last few, and I think it puerile for someone to criticize someone for not having read something posted weeks ago.

There are also some posters I almost never read, for various reasons, and, of course, the briefer it is, the more likely it will be read.

[Frank Merton]

well some studies say that it is just psychological but we are referring to millions of people that have their own unique stories of "paranormal" ,but it is better that someone shows up and bring a glass vial with a ghost inside it..

There are unique stories of all sorts of things, but I doubt "millions." Then there is cultural expectation, that tends to generate a uniformity of the stories, so that the fact that they are similar proves nothing. Whenever I hear "there must be something there or so many would not have reported it," I tend to think the speaker is not thinking clearly and just looking for an excuse to believe.

[Mr Walker]

200 years ago a flying aeroplane would have been extraordinary

No it wouldn't , the Montgolfier brothers had demonstrated that in 1783 but I have not heard of anyone demonstrating a flying horse ,if they have I apologize , however until they do ,it will require extraordinary evidence to satisfy me to it's veracity

You couldn't resist slipping the proverbial Platypus in could you?

fullywired

I didnt say un heard of, just extra ordinary or out of the ordinary. I know the montgolfier brothers invented the hot air ballon but wasn't their aircraft design for a glider?

The playpus historically demonstrates this phenomena (of an extraordinary discovery not being accepted because it ran counter to strong prior knowledge and beliefs about what was possible in real life.

Ps, and playfully. Didn't the US airforce succesfully fly mustangs during WW2?

Edited August 7, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Frank Merton]

The ability of scientists to be surprised like that has steadily diminished. Nowadays when the scientific community says something is highly unlikely, it is.

[Mr Walker]

There are unique stories of all sorts of things, but I doubt "millions." Then there is cultural expectation, that tends to generate a uniformity of the stories, so that the fact that they are similar proves nothing. Whenever I hear "there must be something there or so many would not have reported it," I tend to think the speaker is not thinking clearly and just looking for an excuse to believe.

Isnt his how most of us know and accept anything outside of our personal experience, especialy before the invention of photography. Ie I might never have seen a real ardvaark but so many people can describe one in a similar fashion, that it is likely to be real. How do I discriminate between a thousand people's description of an encounter with an ardvaark, all basically consistent, and 1000 people's description of an angel, all basically consistent, if i have never seen either myself?

it is not cultural expection which shapes the description of the ardvaark. Why then, attribute that to people's description of angels?

[Frank Merton]

I don't get your point.

[Mr Walker]

The ability of scientists to be surprised like that has steadily diminished. Nowadays when the scientific community says something is highly unlikely, it is.

I suspect that is waht scientists thought and said back then too.

I accpet your point about greater scientific knowledge now, but there wil always be unknown unknowns nd as they become known we need to address them with an open mind, not one prejudiced by prior belief about what is possible or not.

[Skep B]

When something unknown becomes known, then it's not paranormal, because its understood, its a part of science.

So "paranormal" is just another word for science we don't understand yet.

[Mr Walker]

I don't get your point.

People generally describe objects and concepts similarly, not because of cultural expectation but because that is how they ARE. Our senses sense the same and our minds work the same, so when we see an aardvark we describe it in a com mon way This will apply to people who encounter angels or ghosts too.

They are not led into a preconceived idea, but see what is there (if they encounter a real entity ) So I know that the angelsI I see (which have solid physical presence and interaction wth the environment) match descriptions and behaviours/ abilities noted by other observers going back millenia. In early times they were known as beings of light. Celts call then the sidhe or fairies. But generally, witness descriptions are very similar across cultures and time.

Now culture and knowledge may shape our names for, and attributions of cause, etc but not the physical form and ability, of a physical thing. So a cat maybe seen as a nuisance, a god, or a good mouser, but it remains physically a cat ( or one of many other names for it in different languages.) A ghost or an angel is the same.

[Mr Walker]

I don't get your point.

Or to put it simpl,y why think/believe that human's cultural perceptions shape their descriptions of ghosts or angels, when this is not true for ardvaarks? How i perceive and treat an ardvaark may vary with culture, but not its physical shape form existence etc.

[MrBene]

I can agree with the last statement when it involves proper research and investigation without charlatans in the middle.

[Frank Merton]

To me "paranormal" means something people imagine and "unknown" refers to things not yet discovered. I think "paranormal" mainly is a derogative word and should only be used to indicate one has strong doubts.

That there are things unknown is no reason to believe anything people assert. That seems to be the gist of the argument -- unknown things have been found in the past therefore we should believe in this or that bit of near if not absolute nonsense. The non sequitur should be obvious, especially when the unknown thing was discovered over a hundred years ago.

[Frank Merton]

Are you trying to tell me that angels are on the same level of reality as aardvarks?

[Skep B]

Don't you diss aardvarks sucka, they'll cut you