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 -
danydandan

Skepticism!

2,446 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danydandan
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

There is a point dany where the lack of evidence can only lead to "no" rather than some agnostic stance. The problem with the paranormal is repeatability. Either it happens or it doesn't. If it does happen where is the actual realness of it. 

I agree. 

People don't realise that we are all capable of hyber agency detection, pareidolia, change blindness, inattentional blindness, our preception is constructed, our memories are constructed which makes them susceptible to being fused, confabulated, contaminated, personalised and distorted. Not to mention every time you remember that memory is constructed again, so each time it's constructed it's susceptible to all if the above. So the likelihood of our memories of events being one hundred percent true is unlikely. Not only are you remembering what you see, your remembering what you heard, you attach emotion to it, your sense of being in the memory. Humility is required when saying my I remember something.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I believe there is still a sorry bias against revolutionary ideas in fields like Consciousness and the Paranormal when they seem to threaten the prevailing materialist paradigm of reality. 

Perhaps because the paranormal hasn't provided enough evidence. And you expose your bias in the statement quoted. To paraphrase you, there is a sorry bias against the procedures and requirements of science by those who embrace the intangible.

As I stated earlier, skepticism towards the paranormal exists because there isn't sufficient evidence to allow for repeatable testing. If there were, then research into the various phenomena would be conducted. If the multitude of paranormal claims were proven, then they would no longer be fringe pseudo-science, but would be incorporated into the mainstream.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
6 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I agree. 

People don't realise that we are all capable of hyber agency detection, pareidolia, change blindness, inattentional blindness, our preception is constructed, our memories are constructed which makes them susceptible to being fused, confabulated, contaminated, personalised and distorted. Not to mention every time you remember that memory is constructed again, so each time it's constructed it's susceptible to all if the above. So the likelihood of our memories of events being one hundred percent true is unlikely. Not only are you remembering what you see, your remembering what you heard, you attach emotion to it, your sense of being in the memory. Humility is required when saying my I remember something.

I came from a back ground of spiritual beliefs. I had to deconstruct them. Take them apart and look at all the moving pieces. Once you start doing that there's no going back. You start seeing the flaws in your own belief, how illogical they were. How the results you got weren't what you thought they were. As you mentioned such things as confirmation bias run rampant. Magical thinking being pretty dominate in believers. The thing that would solve the psychic (or whatever) debate is consistent repeatability. To think there is some grand conspiracy to keep such 'abilities' under wraps is irrational. Because how much funding could scientist get for real psychic powers, real ghost?

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
12 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Perhaps because the paranormal hasn't provided enough evidence. And you expose your bias in the statement quoted. To paraphrase you, there is a sorry bias against the procedures and requirements of science by those who embrace the intangible.

As I stated earlier, skepticism towards the paranormal exists because there isn't sufficient evidence to allow for repeatable testing. If there were, then research into the various phenomena would be conducted. If the multitude of paranormal claims were proven, then they would no longer be fringe pseudo-science, but would be incorporated into the mainstream.

For example, I consider the paranormal already proven by statistical odds-against-chance controlled experiments. Any unproven allegation of experimenter incompetence disqualifies the results for some (and I believe that is what certain biased individuals WANT to hear). You can say, just show me the evidence and I'll believe, but I feel many are biased against the evidence from an attachment to the materialist worldview that has dominated science in the last century.

My view was formed from decades of interest in this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I consider the paranormal already proven by statistical odds-against-chance controlled experiments.

And I am sure that you can cite references to experiments that you claim prove the paranormal, yes?

And they were conducted by reputable researchers who had no pro-paranormal bias or agenda, weren't they?

 

Not being argumentative, but you have a presuppositional belief in the existence of these varied phenomena from "decades of interest in the stuff'. I submit to you Sir, that you have abandoned any semblance of impartiality and skeptical thinking when it comes to unusual phenomena. You desire this stuff to be true, and cite agendas and conspiracies to explain why there is no serious research into it. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
49 minutes ago, danydandan said:

If there was substantial evidence to support or suggest that the Consciousness is independent of our brains it would obviously be accepted, unfortunately it's an untestable hypothesis thus isn't something scientists should bother researching until such a time it becomes testable. You could infer if a Learning Machine developed consciousness it would suggest that consciousness is confined to the structure it's confined to. Other than systematically killing people I can't see another way to test the hypothesis.

Paranormal is a wide ranging term. So I can't comment. But the same applies evidence=acceptance. I do appreciate that there are people who just dismiss everything without consideration due to biasness but that happens in everything. But again thats not scepticism, that cynicism.

As I said just above in my post to Jodi I believe many will not give parapsychology a fair shake but will of course claim upstanding reasons. 

Another point I would make on your comment is the difference between science and what I believe about the universe. Science is great but it is limited at this time. Not being a follower of 'scientism' myself, I learn also from the human experience and other wisdom traditions. 

To me, it is fine that science moves slowly but I am interested in more things than science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
4 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

 

And they were conducted by reputable researchers who had no pro-paranormal bias or agenda, weren't they?

 

 

Stop right there. You are now proposing a subjective judgment decision meaning there will be no end or final arbiter to that discussion. Any bias can not effect a properly controlled experiment anyway. The question becomes if the experiments were properly designed and conducted.

8 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Not being argumentative, but you have a presuppositional belief in the existence of these varied phenomena from "decades of interest in the stuff'. I submit to you Sir, that you have abandoned any semblance of impartiality and skeptical thinking when it comes to unusual phenomena. You desire this stuff to be true, and cite agendas and conspiracies to explain why there is no serious research into it. 

I was a materialist-atheist at one point in my life but converted away from that by the evidence. I still believe I consider things fairly but that too is always a subjective judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

by the evidence.

Show us the evidence. You know, the very thing you have been repeatedly asked to provide. The thing you never provided and instead you break out the papa-meter. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
19 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Any bias can not effect a properly controlled experiment anyway.

The key words being "properly controlled". This is the sticking point where biased researchers (of any branch of study!) can influence findings by 'fudging' the evidence in favor of their bias. That is why peer review is of the utmost importance. Your results should be obtainable by others. It should be repeatable.

 

Remember the guys who claimed they perfected cold fusion? Yeah, they were exposed as frauds because their results couldn't be duplicated. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Show us the evidence. You know, the very thing you have been repeatedly asked to provide. The thing you never provided and instead you break out the papa-meter. 

The evidence is the anecdotal, experimental and investigative data suggesting the paranormal. I form my judgment on the cumulative weight of this evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

The evidence is the anecdotal, experimental and investigative data suggesting the paranormal. I form my judgment on the cumulative weight of this evidence.

Show us this evidence. I don't care about your opinion. I'm not concerned with your confirmation bias. I want the evidence. Whenever a thread pops up concerning ghost or psychic powers I could almost bet you'll say it was paranormal. You just change you name to ParanormalGeorge. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

The key words being "properly controlled". This is the sticking point where biased researchers (of any branch of study!) can influence findings by 'fudging' the evidence in favor of their bias. That is why peer review is of the utmost importance. Your results should be obtainable by others. It should be repeatable.

 

Remember the guys who claimed they perfected cold fusion? Yeah, they were exposed as frauds because their results couldn't be duplicated. 

The results have been peer reviewed and reproduced. The best spokesman for the argument for experimental proof that I know of is Dr. Dean Radin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Show us this evidence. I don't care about your opinion. I'm not concerned with your confirmation bias. I want the evidence. Whenever a thread pops up concerning ghost or psychic powers I could almost bet you'll say it was paranormal. You just change you name to ParanormalGeorge. 

PG typically judges likelihood. That is the only reasonable way I can proceed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

PG typically judges likelihood. That is the only reasonable way I can proceed.

I look for the most probably cause first. Then work my way down. Someone comes in here and tells us a ghost story. They woke up at 3 am and saw a ghost. Where would you go from there? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Actually the analogy works but it shows movving in tiny increments is something that mainstream science can be comfortable with. The main difference is they are often not comfortable with more revolutionary hypotheses.

It doesn't work because...Higgs was hypothesized according to already established physics.  There are no physics regarding paranormal, etc other than negating the possibility.

The only way to have evidence of an alien for example would be to observe one...close up and personal. There just isn't any of that.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The results have been peer reviewed and reproduced. The best spokesman for the argument for experimental proof that I know of is Dr. Dean Radin.

 

Cite your sources. Provide links.

Do you mean this Dr. Dean Radin?

Cited from Wikipedia (the first site that came up) The underlined part is extremely telling. So much for "properly controlled and conducted".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dean Radin (/ˈrdɪn/; born February 29, 1952) is a parapsychology researcher.

He has been Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), in Petaluma, California, USA, since 2001, served on dissertation committees at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, and former President of the Parapsychological Association.[1][2] He is also co-editor-in-chief of the journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing.[3]

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims.[4][5][6][7] The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.[8]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 hours ago, danydandan said:

What are you going on about the whole scientific method is based on doubt, specifically being sceptical about what being observed. That's why it must be unbiased, objective and repeatable. Thus logically your saying we should abandon the whole scientific method? 

Philosophical scepticism is based on different principles, I'm not going to get into it. Scientific scepticism is based on knowledge that we derived from the first principles and the last 400 years of science knowledge. Simple. 

This thread isn't about what you or define as evidence or prove. The premise of the thread is to explore the metacognition of individuals. Specifically relating to how they evaluate claims, their own beliefs and views. 

If you can not stick to that premise please don't veer the thread off-topic. Obviously you are well entitled to give your method of evaluation, or whatever the hell you want, but your or anyone elses definition of fact or whatever isn't what's being discussed.

No I am not saying that .

The scientific method is one of the greatest advances in human progress and thinking,  and, on a material level, has brought us to the point we are now, and will advance us further 

But it does not have to include active scepticism or doubt.

Indeed a purely OPEN mind, free from either scepticism or (a tendency to) belief, works best,  because it leaves the mind unbiased, to  observe and deduce without prejudice.

Both a tendency to belief, or a tendency to disbelief, can bias both observation/perception and analysis /conclusions.   Don't EXPECT anything either way and you are more likely to get the true answer  

Observation deduction, hypothesising, testing,  analysing etc .,  do not require scepticism, just honesty of mind.

You asked for our definition of scepticism.

Personally i don't think you (generic)  can define or understand scepticism, unless  you are clear about what can be known, observed, tested,  etc., and what cannot.  

And to determine those requires evidences and proofs 

With evidences and proofs, it is more difficult to be sceptical, and ultimately impossible, without creating a whole new paradigm (eg  a creationist can be sceptical of evolution if they believe  that all the proofs for evolution are a part of creation)  But, without proofs and evidences, both belief and scepticism become not just possible, but probable. 

Share this post


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

The evidence is the anecdotal, experimental and investigative data suggesting the paranormal. I form my judgment on the cumulative weight of this evidence.

Anecdotal is NOT evidence.  Cumulative weight of Anecdote is nothing.

I give you the following: 

Newlyweds Bobby and Sue.  They were invited to Sue's best friends party. They chose to watch a movie at home together because they were ....newlyweds...and wanted some time just for themselves.

Somewhere along the way...an argument happened.   Words were spoken that caused both to become angry.  Sue lashes out at Bobby...and says she is leaving...on the way out the door, she inadvertently walks into the door, cutting her face and bruising her left eye almost immediately.

She begins crying and runs out...gets in her car and starts driving...she goes to her best friends party.

When she enters the party...she mutters...Bobby! ...and her and her best friend exit to the bathroom.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of the people believe that Bobby assaulted Sue.   Many of them know Bobby has a temper and so the ....

....cumulative anecdotal evidence...is highly suggestive that Bobby indeed assaulted Sue.

What is the truth?   All of the cumulative evidence doesn't prove anything...because the truth is...that Sue walked into a door.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are basing your 'beliefs' on ...cumulative evidence...none of which is proven by scientific method nor can it be.

I might be skeptical of Sue's story about walking into the door after she tells it to me at the party...because I know Bobby has a temper and I think she is covering for him.   It doesn't change the truth...it is anecdotal evidence.   The truth is what the truth is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Skepticism of paranormal activity isn't based on a lack of cumulative anecdotal evidence...it is based on cumulative Scientific Evidence of how the body works...how the brain works...how atoms work...how ......................P H Y S I C S ......work.

Cumulative Anecdotal Evidence  =  No Evidence. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
2 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

And I am sure that you can cite references to experiments that you claim prove the paranormal, yes?

And they were conducted by reputable researchers who had no pro-paranormal bias or agenda, weren't they?

 

Not being argumentative, but you have a presuppositional belief in the existence of these varied phenomena from "decades of interest in the stuff'. I submit to you Sir, that you have abandoned any semblance of impartiality and skeptical thinking when it comes to unusual phenomena. You desire this stuff to be true, and cite agendas and conspiracies to explain why there is no serious research into it. 

As a person gains knowldge and understanding on any topic, this will move and evolve their opinions about it.  It is easy to be sceptical about anything from a position of (factual ignorance;) harder to remain sceptical as you gather data and evidences, including the experiences of others.

It is easy to dismiss personal evidences as anecdotal but basically ALL understanding and knowledge comes down to the personal experiences of an individual.

Eg for a couple of decades   aged from  about 6 i read everything i could on flying saucers and UFOS. This gave me a huge metal repository of case studies reports and govt investigations it influenced how I felt about their probable existence  

Its a lot harder for me to be sceptical about them than someone who knows nothing. Even harder having seen a few UFOS 

Even govt agencies conclude that there is a small but significant number of cases which are real, and totally inexplicable within current scientific knowledge  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbenol
11 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Indeed a purely OPEN mind, free from either scepticism or (a tendency to) belief, works best,  because it leaves the mind unbiased, to  observe and deduce without prejudice.

Both a tendency to belief, or a tendency to disbelief, can bias both observation/perception and analysis /conclusions.   Don't EXPECT anything either way and you are more likely to get the true answer  

 

I can't speak for everyone, but your definition of scepticism differs significantly from the one I posted earlier. You're using it as synonymous with 'doubt', but I think of it more as a synonym of 'questioning'. It has no inherent bias.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I look for the most probably cause first. Then work my way down. 

So do I.

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

 Someone comes in here and tells us a ghost story. They woke up at 3 am and saw a ghost. Where would you go from there? 

Ask for more information.

Share this post


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

It doesn't work because...Higgs was hypothesized according to already established physics.  There are no physics regarding paranormal, etc other than negating the possibility.

The only way to have evidence of an alien for example would be to observe one...close up and personal. There just isn't any of that.  

 

Actually, with that you might be agreeing with what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Cite your sources. Provide links.

Do you mean this Dr. Dean Radin?

Cited from Wikipedia (the first site that came up) The underlined part is extremely telling. So much for "properly controlled and conducted".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dean Radin (/ˈrdɪn/; born February 29, 1952) is a parapsychology researcher.

He has been Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), in Petaluma, California, USA, since 2001, served on dissertation committees at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, and former President of the Parapsychological Association.[1][2] He is also co-editor-in-chief of the journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing.[3]

Radin's ideas and work have been criticized by scientists and philosophers skeptical of paranormal claims.[4][5][6][7] The review of Radin's first book, The Conscious Universe, that appeared in Nature charged that Radin ignored the known hoaxes in the field, made statistical errors and ignored plausible non-paranormal explanations for parapsychological data.[8]

Yes, that's the same Dean Radin but just written about by Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

As I said in my earlier post to you, any unproven allegation is enough for pseudo-skeptics to dismiss everything. And it is impossible to stop unproven allegations so the game goes on forever. I did my homework on this very subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
7 hours ago, Will Due said:

So when you asked "what difference does it make" you were implying that new facts, when or if they may become known in the future, are irrelevant. Did you not?

That's correct; I did not.

You didn't introduce any new facts. You steered away from the logical fatuity of your sucker's bet, started harping on its impracticality, and then changed the subject entirely to how the legal profession (?!) balances decisiveness with fair fact finding.

I asked "what difference" the impracticality of ever knowing that all relevant facts are known makes to your remark that implied that skepticism is necessarily inappropriate under all possible states of knowledge. If it's "damned if you do and damned if you don't," then it doesn't matter whether you do, don't, or even whether you do or don't know what you did. You're damned.

That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the appeals court system, and you knew that it had nothing to do with it when you blew that smoke screen. You changed the subject solely to dodge the patent intellectual bankruptcy of the non-issue that you had brought up.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
29 minutes ago, joc said:

Anecdotal is NOT evidence.  Cumulative weight of Anecdote is nothing.

I give you the following: 

Newlyweds Bobby and Sue.  They were invited to Sue's best friends party. They chose to watch a movie at home together because they were ....newlyweds...and wanted some time just for themselves.

Somewhere along the way...an argument happened.   Words were spoken that caused both to become angry.  Sue lashes out at Bobby...and says she is leaving...on the way out the door, she inadvertently walks into the door, cutting her face and bruising her left eye almost immediately.

She begins crying and runs out...gets in her car and starts driving...she goes to her best friends party.

When she enters the party...she mutters...Bobby! ...and her and her best friend exit to the bathroom.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most of the people believe that Bobby assaulted Sue.   Many of them know Bobby has a temper and so the ....

....cumulative anecdotal evidence...is highly suggestive that Bobby indeed assaulted Sue.

What is the truth?   All of the cumulative evidence doesn't prove anything...because the truth is...that Sue walked into a door.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You are basing your 'beliefs' on ...cumulative evidence...none of which is proven by scientific method nor can it be.

I might be skeptical of Sue's story about walking into the door after she tells it to me at the party...because I know Bobby has a temper and I think she is covering for him.   It doesn't change the truth...it is anecdotal evidence.   The truth is what the truth is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Skepticism of paranormal activity isn't based on a lack of cumulative anecdotal evidence...it is based on cumulative Scientific Evidence of how the body works...how the brain works...how atoms work...how ......................P H Y S I C S ......work.

Cumulative Anecdotal Evidence  =  No Evidence. 

Anecdotal evidence wisely considered can influence my view on things. It is a basic human reasoning skill to evaluate a collection of anecdotal evidence. Any critical evaluation considers the possibility of misinterpretation. It is not called 'proof' but evidence. And one considers that some cases may be misinterpreted of course. That is why a large body of cases considered for quantity,  quality and consistency is best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.