The absence of evidence

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Evidence is anything that furthers the case for a position. "Real' evidence is a subjective term for strong evidence I suppose..

 

I don't like to wear to any glasses myself, the clearer the better, and I believe in many things beyond the so-called 'normal' most conservative views. It is just my objective opinion on all the evidence and argumentation from all sides.

You seem to be doing what you always do and that is pretending that guesses are evidence. Evidence is not an anecdote, or wishful thinking. It is not hope or pretending or claiming there is reason to believe. You simply wish to believe without evidence or reason. That's fine. You can, but it is not based on evidence or reason.

Quote

"belief' (as opposed to 'faith"). Personal belief is formed from the best objective analysis of all evidence and argumentation from all sides. That is how human reason works in the absence of perfect proof, right?

Your personal belief is not based on objective analysis. It hardly ever based on evidence. It is wishful thinking and almost always chooses concepts despite the evidence. That is not how rational humans work. Rational humans do not invent unnecessary concepts to explain the mundane. It is clear to everyone that you prefer the unproven and irrational explanations.

[stereologist]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

A fact can be something like; Both people claimed to see the UFO.........that would be an example of a fact

What you don't realize is that you are heading to saying that you do not believe in anything without proof.

A few years back a physicist might have said; 'Although not proven yet, I believe the Higgs-Boson is likely to exist'. Was the scientist thinking in a way you do not respect when he made that statement?

The fact that two people claimed to see a UFO does not mean they saw a UFO.  It could mean two people saw something they did not understand but others did. It could mean that two people denied that it was explainable yet others were able to easily identify the plane that flew by. You've pointed out an anecdote.

No one has suggested that evidence has to be proof.

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Evidence can be weak or strong. Things can be presented as evidence that are not.

Of course, but if someone claims something then it is evidence to me as I don't know. I always consider a stranger could be lying or telling the truth. I use my judgment on seeming likelihood.

[stereologist]

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Of course, but if someone claims something then it is evidence to me as I don't know. I always consider a stranger could be lying or telling the truth. I use my judgment on seeming likelihood.

An anecdote should rarely be considered evidence. I know you consider it evidence and you consider it strong evidence, but that is why you tend to choose irrational concepts.

If you don't know then don't consider it evidence. Your judgment is always that if the person backs up one of your paranormal ideas you believe them. Real researchers don't that. You end up being like a radio announcer that only accepts what they already believe. You think that the testimonies of like minded people somehow supports your belief in the paranormal, your favorite sports team, whether or not you should wear the latest fashion, or anything else in life. It's not evidence and its not rational reasoning.

[GlitterRose]

I think evidence anyone would take seriously would be pretty difficult to capture. 

I mean...if you got a photo or video, people would just think you faked it or doctored it. 

You'd have to have actual hard evidence like a piece of a spaceship or alien dna. The body of a bigfoot. Something spectacular like that.

The supernatural would be a bit more unruly. You'd have to get it to show up on cue, somehow. And even then, you couldn't really prove what it was. Only that there was some sort of phenomena. And others would have to be able to replicate it. 

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

You seem to be doing what you always do and that is pretending that guesses are evidence. Evidence is not an anecdote, or wishful thinking. It is not hope or pretending or claiming there is reason to believe. You simply wish to believe without evidence or reason. That's fine. You can, but it is not based on evidence or reason.

Your personal belief is not based on objective analysis. It hardly ever based on evidence. It is wishful thinking and almost always chooses concepts despite the evidence. That is not how rational humans work. Rational humans do not invent unnecessary concepts to explain the mundane. It is clear to everyone that you prefer the unproven and irrational explanations.

No, I feel my view is the balanced and fair one, seriously. I see biased evidence attack and even science denial by the materialist side.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The fact that two people claimed to see a UFO does not mean they saw a UFO.

Duh, like I am not aware of that obvious fact. We must judge likeliness by using all we know.

[Timothy]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I feel my view is the balanced and fair one, seriously. I see biased evidence attack and even science denial by the materialist side.

I've never seen you disagree with any topic suggesting ET or the paranormal. From the most mundane to the most fantastical. That's gotta mean something...

[papageorge1]

52 minutes ago, stereologist said:

An anecdote should rarely be considered evidence. I know you consider it evidence and you consider it strong evidence, but that is why you tend to choose irrational concepts.

If you don't know then don't consider it evidence. Your judgment is always that if the person backs up one of your paranormal ideas you believe them. Real researchers don't that. You end up being like a radio announcer that only accepts what they already believe. You think that the testimonies of like minded people somehow supports your belief in the paranormal, your favorite sports team, whether or not you should wear the latest fashion, or anything else in life. It's not evidence and its not rational reasoning.

I guess some people just can not understand what 'evidence' means. Certainly, it can be weak or strong.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Timonthy said:

I've never seen you disagree with any topic suggesting ET or the paranormal. From the most mundane to the most fantastical. That's gotta mean something...

I lean to the  'normal' side on many cases. I think some individuals will always resist leaning to the paranormal. I am balanced but many on this forum are heavily into forcing only 'normal' positions such that I may look unbalanced to their unbalanced thinking.

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

No, I feel my view is the balanced and fair one, seriously. I see biased evidence attack and even science denial by the materialist side.

Where is the balance? What is fair about your methods? You say it but do no more than claim you used rational methods which do not in any manner look like rational methods.

I see a clear preference for fantasy, delusion, and irrational conclusion.

Please provide an example of " I see biased evidence attack and even science denial by the materialist side."

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Duh, like I am not aware of that obvious fact. We must judge likeliness by using all we know.

To the skeptic it means little. To the believer it means confirmation. Judging likeliness is the way believers in the unproven pretend it is a rational and well thought out process. It allows the believer to find confirmation in non-evidence.

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I guess some people just can not understand what 'evidence' means. Certainly, it can be weak or strong.

Anecdotes are weak and yet that is what you latch onto. Clearly, you do not understand what evidence is. You rely on what is no evidence to support your goal.

[stereologist]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I lean to the  'normal' side on many cases. I think some individuals will always resist leaning to the paranormal. I am balanced but many on this forum are heavily into forcing only 'normal' positions such that I may look unbalanced to their unbalanced thinking.

I have not seen that. Can you give an example? I haven't seen anything in these fora(forum plural) that supports a position other than the prosaic. Yet, when a mundane explanation makes sense you choose something other than that. I can't recall a single exception to that. Please feel free to show that is not the case.

[Ozymandias]

I used to believe in the tooth fairy until I discovered there is no evidence for it. Same with Santa Clause. Empirical evidence, whether it is weak or strong, is still evidence. If you take a position based on the rational and objective analysis of available evidence then your conclusion cannot be based on belief. Belief involves a leap of faith that is not supported by evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is always true.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Ozymandias

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Please provide an example of " I see biased evidence attack and even science denial by the materialist side."

A host of experimental and observational evidence by competent and careful is called pseudoscience. Examples; lets take the statistical evidence for telepathy (Ganzfeld) and Remote Viewing. I believe that lack of acceptance to be science denial. 

[stereologist]

38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

A host of experimental and observational evidence by competent and careful is called pseudoscience. Examples; lets take the statistical evidence for telepathy (Ganzfeld) and Remote Viewing. I believe that lack of acceptance to be science denial. 

That is a good example. The problem is that the Ganzfeld experiments are lacking in replication and consistency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Quote

Consistent, independent replication of ganzfeld experiments has not been achieved.

The fact that the Ganzfeld researchers cannot achieve what is expected is not a problem for anyone but those doing the research.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, stereologist said:

 Ganzfeld experiments are lacking in replication and consistency.

NO, they are not lacking in replication and consistency.

4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment

Wikipedia articles have been heavily edited by science deniers supported by its atheist owner Jimmy Wales. Here is some evidence for my position; there is a group called Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

[stereologist]

52 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

NO, they are not lacking in replication and consistency.

Wikipedia articles have been heavily edited by science deniers supported by its atheist owner Jimmy Wales. Here is some evidence for my position; there is a group called Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

False. The Ganzfeld experiments are inconsistent. We've been over this again and again and again. The wikipedia statement is support by the following:

• Frazier, Kendrick. (1991). The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal. Prometheus Books. pp. 143–48. ISBN 978-0879756550
• Hyman, Ray. (1996). The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality. The Skeptical Inquirer. pp. 24–26. Retrieved November 4, 2013.
• Smith, Jonathan. (2009). Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405181228. Retrieved November 1, 2013.
• Rathus, Spencer. (2011). Psychology: Concepts and Connections. Cengage Learning. p. 143. ISBN 978-1111344856
• Marks, David; Kammann, Richard. (2000). The Psychology of the Psychic. Prometheus Books. pp. 97–106. ISBN 1-57392-798-8

It's not an unsupported statement. Can you substantiated your position?

[stereologist]

One of the comments in the criticism section has been brought up many times here at UM as well as many other places.

Quote

The psi assumption — The assumption that any statistical deviation from chance is evidence for telepathy is highly controversial. Strictly speaking, a deviation from chance is only evidence that either this was a rare, statistically unlikely occurrence that happened by chance, or something was causing a deviation from chance. Flaws in the experimental design are a common cause of this, and so the assumption that it must be telepathy is fallacious.

This is the when in doubt therefore psi assumption. It's a poor replacement for proving psi or anything else.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, stereologist said:

We've been over this again and again and again.

Let's not add another 'again' 

[stereologist]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Let's not add another 'again' 

We can avoid another again by you taking the time to support your statement of " NO, they are not lacking in replication and consistency. " otherwise we end up with the same old situation. If there is something I'd love to see the evidence.

[I'mConvinced]

On 19/08/2017 at 7:04 PM, stereologist said:

We can avoid another again by you taking the time to support your statement of " NO, they are not lacking in replication and consistency. " otherwise we end up with the same old situation. If there is something I'd love to see the evidence.

A common theme among believers is that a 'vast catalog' of 'evidence' is available, cannot be ignored and must contain a secret even when they cannot single out one specific case or piece of evidence to focus on.  Conformation bias will then kick in and even debunked and thoroughly discredited evidence will be presented as fact.  Skeptics will be quick to point this out, site sources and reasons why the evidence can't be taken at face value.  The believer, convinced in their view, will continue to ignore the obvious and instead seek a straw man or ad hominem argument to support their rational.

In this case you are arguing with someone who reverts to 'but wikipedia is suppressing the info', 'it's founder is an atheist!' - 'the information is altered'.  Of course all of these claims are unsubstantiated, difficult to dismiss and do nothing to further the original debate. You retort with a number of different sources, published over decades, from independent studies all of which refute the methodology used and point to the biased nature of the people conducting the 'study'.  You will either be greeted with silence, brushed off without debate over the counter evidence or bombarded with more unsubstantiated 'evidence' which tries to put the burden of proof on you, as if you are the one making the outlandish claims. 

Mysteries excite me.  I want Aliens to exist, I want to be able to develop physic or telekinetic powers, I want Bigfoot to eat the president and I want dinosaurs flying in the skies of America.  However, decades of searching, reading, watching, listening and investigating have led me to my current conclusion - all of it is nonsense with zero, and I do mean zero, scientific evidence to back any of it up.  No genuine pictures or videos of aliens, ghosts or the paranormal, no repeatable experiments with testable conclusions.  Millions in prize money has been offered but it appears none of the worlds psychics need it - perhaps they earn enough 'proving' it to believers... 

[rashore]

I tend to be a skeptical believer with a lot of stuff, depends on the story. UFO's and aliens..

UFO's do exist. Lot's of stories and photo's have been positively identified, but some of them have not. Possible theories or notions as to what it could be, but sometimes whatever it is remains unidentified. Whatever they are, the remain UFO's. Maybe someday someone will figure out some of those too, and then they won't be UFO's anymore.

I believe there is life elsewhere in the Universe, it's a big place for Earth to be the only planet to have life on it. I don't believe any of that alien life has visited Earth. Just because we weren't able to positively ID something, I don't consider that to be supporting proof or evidence of alien spaceships or visitations. That's a jump in belief I'm far too skeptical of to accept.

Some other paranormal/spooky stuff is like that too. Something weird happened- sometimes it's easy to explain and be identified, sometimes whatever it is isn't really resolved or explained yet. Don't necessarily mean whatever it was is proof or evidence of ghosts/wee folk/cryptids/magic/superpowers, ect. Just means we haven't figured it out yet. Till we figure it out, it remains a weird thing that tends to get classified under paranormal/spooky stuff topics.

 

[AlienzTruth]

You will always remain a believer or a non-believer unless you've seen UFO's and/or encountered ET's face to face. When that moment happens, there's no believing, it's knowing.