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 -
stevnpa

New and a sceptic but...

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
7 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Or, a rational person can conclude that a practical explanation exists but it just hasn't been found yet.

In a way, we kind of agree. This would be expanding our understanding of reality to a more complex view in which things currently called 'paranormal' (like spirits perhaps) can be part of the normal in this expanded view of the normal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
42 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There is nothing irrational and unscientific in believing in the paranormal. The belief that we live in a universe mind-bogglingly more complex than our materialist thinking can explain is not irrational and I think is indicated by events such as yours and millions of others ten times over. We should look for normal explanations first, but there comes a point where I believe a rational person can conclude the so-called paranormal exists and our materialist understanding is dramatically incomplete.

We're been through this in so many other threads. Evidence for the paranormal does not stand up to scrutiny, to the extent that the paranormal can be said not to exist at all.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Emma_Acid said:

We're been through this in so many other threads. Evidence for the paranormal does not stand up to scrutiny, to the extent that the paranormal can be said not to exist at all.

So, I needn't go through the process again of strongly disagreeing with your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
22 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

In a way, we kind of agree. This would be expanding our understanding of reality to a more complex view in which things currently called 'paranormal' (like spirits perhaps) can be part of the normal in this expanded view of the normal.

Yes, spirits are not necessarily above the realm of possibility. But in my opinion, reality is more complex than the paranormal. When you think about it, the paranormal is a rather simplistic explanation for the inexplicable. It's also an easy one. What's that noise? A ghost. Who took my keys? A ghost. What scared Fluffy? A ghost.

Why use an unproved explanation to prove something? It doesn't make rational sense. People get so sidetracked with superstition and various beliefs that all logic flies out the window the minute a bird flies in. You know what I'm getting at. Just the same, I get your point and yes, perhaps one day we'll have a much better awareness and understanding of all that is (or is not) around us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 minutes ago, Claire. said:

Yes, spirits are not necessarily above the realm of possibility. But in my opinion, reality is more complex than the paranormal. When you think about it, the paranormal is a rather simplistic explanation for the inexplicable. It's also an easy one. What's that noise? A ghost. Who took my keys? A ghost. What scared Fluffy? A ghost.

From the scientific perspective, the paranormal seems so complex as to cause shudders. It is anything but a simplistic explanation. A scientist would want to know the infinite details behind how all these things work. Nobody with a scientific mind would say a 'ghost' did it and leave it at that. He would still want to know how ghosts all work, wouldn't he. The issue today is that our senses can not investigate beyond the three-dimensional physical plane. However, I believe there are those among us that can perceive beyond the physical five senses and give us theories as to what may be going on. I just accept what I rationally consider to be the most reasonable theory, be it normal or so-called paranormal.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The issue today is that our senses can not investigate beyond the three-dimensional physical plane

My senses can investigate in four dimensions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Let me know when they find that illusive Casper Particle. You know the one that makes ghost real.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
20 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

From the scientific perspective, the paranormal seems so complex as to cause shudders. It is anything but a simplistic explanation. A scientist would want to know the infinite details behind how all these things work. Nobody with a scientific mind would say a 'ghost' did it and leave it at that. He would still want to know how ghosts all work, wouldn't he. The issue today is that our senses can not investigate beyond the three-dimensional physical plane. However, I believe there are those among us that can perceive beyond the physical five senses and give us theories as to what may be going on. I just accept what I rationally consider to be the most reasonable theory, be it normal or so-called paranormal.

I meant that the paranormal explanation was a simplistic (and/or easy one) in situations where the rational was more complex and difficult to figure out. Yet, I still think the field to be overly simplistic in general. The overall concept is this: The soul (or consciousness) is separate from the brain, and lives on after we do. Any neuroscientist worth their salt would be quick to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory and that the likelihood of it being true is nil next to none.

There is no one among us who can perceive beyond the senses we have. We aren't all equal in terms of how well we use them, and granted some people are more 'in tune' than others — but it seems that the only people who see or feel things are either mentally ill, on drugs, extremely tired or stressed, or adversely affected by their environment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, toast said:

My senses can investigate in four dimensions.

Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 hours ago, Claire. said:

I meant that the paranormal explanation was a simplistic (and/or easy one) in situations where the rational was more complex and difficult to figure out. Yet, I still think the field to be overly simplistic in general. The overall concept is this: The soul (or consciousness) is separate from the brain, and lives on after we do. Any neuroscientist worth their salt would be quick to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory and that the likelihood of it being true is nil next to none.

There is no one among us who can perceive beyond the senses we have. We aren't all equal in terms of how well we use them, and granted some people are more 'in tune' than others — but it seems that the only people who see or feel things are either mentally ill, on drugs, extremely tired or stressed, or adversely affected by their environment.

There was a reminder in the other thread I was just in about taking threads off course. Basically, every thread I get into comes down to believers versus disbelievers in the so-called paranormal. Do we really want to do this again or just give our quite different answers to the OP question? At this point we just have to accept on any paranormal subject that there are two schools of thought and the twain do not meet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

That depends on which answer is the more reasonable one. Magical thinking begetts magical thinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Please explain.

Fourth dimension = Time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

For ghosts to exist you have to make assumptions that run against what we currently know, with no evidence to back them up. The claims get steadily more fantastical. 

 The better our tools get, the better we get at teasing out fraud, the less credible the excuses get. A radio with its tuner damaged, or a rf detector in the hands of an amateur, do not make for scientific investigation. 

 To say nothing of the continued support of frauds and hoaxes that diminish the credibility of such investigators. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So, I needn't go through the process again of strongly disagreeing with your opinion.

It's nothing to do with opinions. The scientific evidence for the paranormal is not there.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, Emma_Acid said:

It's nothing to do with opinions. The scientific evidence for the paranormal is not there.

Is the scientific evidence against it "there" ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Many of the claims run against solid scientific principles. 

 Not that it necessarily disproves them, it does count against them, lacking evidence for their claims. 

 Of course, it's also very difficult to prove a negative. 

 Not impossible, but difficult. For example, to conclusively disprove there's a plesiosaur in Loch Ness would for some people require draining the Loch. And even that isn't absolute proof that one wasn't there in the past. 

 Research into the paranormal isn't new, it's been going on now for a very long time. Even getting government grants and military funding. But nothing has been revealed, even while major breakthroughs have been made in every other field. 

 So yes, it doesn't seem likely. 

 Not that I would say investigating it is pointless. Some research into it, while not supporting the paranormal, have lead to understanding in cases like sleep paralysis. 

 Anna there's always a chance somebody will find something. I don't really think so anymore, but it's why I still enjoy reading about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

There is a huge amount of fakery, ratbaggery, and sheer credulity in the paranormal "community". But even if only 0.001% of it is legitimate, it is over the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

Yes, but we have yet to see that .001%. 

All we have found is the aforementioned fakery, ratbaggery, and credulity.

 When we do, great. I'd recommend taking one of the many challenges offered by skeptical organizations. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
15 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Is the scientific evidence against it "there" ? 

Pretty much. The concept of ghosts (for example) runs against everything we know about biology, evolution and physics (such as thermodynamics). Someone seeing something ghostly is far more easily explainable through quirks in our own mental make up, rather than come up with a concept that runs counter to everything we know in several very established fields of science. Basically, "it was the spirit of a dead person" isn't a justifiable response given how much we know about everything else.

Sure, it isn't impossible. But even a "0.001%" of claims would still constitute a violation of known science, and such a circumstance the evidence for ghosts would need to be overwhelming, and it is barely even present.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

And please don't come back with the "science can't study the paranormal" nonsense, it isn't an argument.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, ShadowSot said:

Yes, but we have yet to see that .001%. 

 

 

I have. Many times. Do I have a recording, a picture, or some other proof ? No. Would I have had the proof if I'd set up video surveillance, etc ? I very much doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I have. Many times. Do I have a recording, a picture, or some other proof ? No. Would I have had the proof if I'd set up video surveillance, etc ? I very much doubt it.

Great. So like I said, we have no evidence that can be tested in any sort of objective fashion. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, ShadowSot said:

Great. So like I said, we have no evidence that can be tested in any sort of objective fashion. 

To you, that supports your predisposition to dismiss it. To me, it says that there is an uncanny privacy in these demonstrations that keeps the uninitiated guessing. Open access it ain't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

To you, that supports your predisposition to dismiss it. To me, it says that there is an uncanny privacy in these demonstrations that keeps the uninitiated guessing. Open access it ain't.

Which is convenient. 

 By the same token there's a dragon in my garage that only I can see and feeds on negative energy. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, ShadowSot said:

Which is convenient. 

 By the same token there's a dragon in my garage that only I can see and feeds on negative energy. 

I don't make the rules. It appears very clear to me that communication from the beyond proceeds under strict rules, beside the secrecy part. That ( secrecy) must be universal, otherwise we would have the celebrated case evidences. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.