The Pantomime of Debunkery

[+ouija ouija]

38 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Telling a ghost story doesn't prove ghost exist. 

Er ..... nobody said it did. However, seeing a ghost proves to the one who saw it that ghosts exist. (And who cares if no one else believes it?!)

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Er ..... nobody said it did. However, seeing a ghost proves to the one who saw it that ghosts exist. (And who cares if no one else believes it?!)

But whatever is behind the scenes pulling the strings apparently doesn't mind the witness talking about it, it appears to know the scoffers won't have their minds altered by mere anecdotes. It really is a strange old business. 

[XenoFish]

8 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Er ..... nobody said it did. However, seeing a ghost proves to the one who saw it that ghosts exist. (And who cares if no one else believes it?!)

Seeing a ghost doesn't prove you saw a real ghost. There are quite a few reasonable explanations for such sightings. 

No one has to accept such stories. What happens a lot here is the attempt to force skeptic to believe a story. Have I seen "ghost", hell yes. Do I believe they were actual ghost, no not at all. 

State of mind, belief, imagination, subconscious focus, sleep deprivation, drugs. Plus a lot more rational explanations as well.

[+ouija ouija]

24 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Seeing a ghost doesn't prove you saw a real ghost. There are quite a few reasonable explanations for such sightings. 

No one has to accept such stories. What happens a lot here is the attempt to force skeptic to believe a story. Have I seen "ghost", hell yes. Do I believe they were actual ghost, no not at all. 

State of mind, belief, imagination, subconscious focus, sleep deprivation, drugs. Plus a lot more rational explanations as well.

And all the above doesn't prove the person didn't see a ghost! My point is, as always, that the sceptics/debunkers, call them what you will, are being very shortsighted and foolish if they refuse to allow into their minds the possibility that paranormal stuff exists. And when all is said and done, the experiencer is in the best position to know whether what is experienced is real or not(usually).

Keep in mind that a lot of people who have experienced the paranormal are not gullible and often question what has happened very thoroughly ..... they do consider other possibilities.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

And all the above doesn't prove the person didn't see a ghost! My point is, as always, that the sceptics/debunkers, call them what you will, are being very shortsighted and foolish if they refuse to allow into their minds the possibility that paranormal stuff exists. And when all is said and done, the experiencer is in the best position to know whether what is experienced is real or not(usually).

Same can be said for believers who are unwilling to entertain the idea of what they think they saw, isn't what the saw.

Keep in mind that a lot of people who have experienced the paranormal are not gullible and often question what has happened very thoroughly ..... they do consider other possibilities.

When those people show up here the threads are typically great. However, the "true believers" are just as dogma (sometimes worse) than the hard-nose skeptics.

 

[XenoFish]

The only reason I'm not a true believer, is because I questioned everything that resulted from my occult practices. Sure I have a "that was weird" folder, but I don't take it serious. What I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to have a deep need to believe. Don't get me wrong. It would be nice and really interesting if the supernatural and paranormal tangibly existed. I have personal reason for that. I just can't go on faith regarding it.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

My conclusions are not dependent on there having been proof available to the masses. All it does is cause wonder as to how it remains "uncaptured".

From an outside perspective, it doesn't look as wonderous. 

[Habitat]

If you have sound, genuine reasons to believe this stuff, naturally you don't have a need to believe it, you don't have any choice but to believe it. But why anyone would want, or need to disbelieve it, well that is a bit of a an interesting question, the answer may be different for different people, but it is a puzzle to me.

[Habitat]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

From an outside perspective, it doesn't look as wonderous. 

I agree entirely, it is the sort of question I would never have even wondered about, the greater part of my life. It is only when you know it is real, that the wondering starts.

[stereologist]

4 hours ago, macqdor said:

@papageorge1

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2017/07/31/pseudo-skepticism-the-new-debunking

Sums a lot of things up.

Love this comedic article that calls Graham Hancock an esteemed author.

The problem with people using debunker as a pejorative is that the user of the term finds it upsetting that they've been fooled by the simplest of tricks. The simple fact is that most of the stories that get debunked are rather trivial to debunk.

When a skeptic reveals the trick, the believer retaliates by calling the person a debunker. Instead of accepting the fact that they've been tricked they go on the defensive.

This article goes on to do all of those things that maqcdor accuses others of doing:

1. character assassination

2. labeling

Notice that there are no examples, just vacuous claims most of which do not appear to reflect reality.

In summary, it is a whine. It reminds me of talking points handed out to creationists.

 

[esoteric_toad]

Personally I have come to a conclusion. 

There are those that have had experiences that will believe with absolute unshakable faith can be nothing other than 'paranormal'. For most of those that feel this way it is harmless.

There are those that have had experiences and want to find answers, real answers, reasonable answers. They do not instantly accept that their experiences are absolutely paranormal and are open to any and all possibilities.

There are those that want to find verifiable evidence of any kind. They do not accept anecdotes as evidence. They question evidence for very good reasons given the past history of "paranormal investigations" of all types being subject to poor execution, biases, non-scientific methods and out right hoaxes.

Both ends of the spectrum of faith/skepticism can be flawed and in extreme examples, dangerous.

Hopefully everyone can keep a level head and not move into that territory.

[stereologist]

3 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

A sweeping generalisation that simply isn't true.              

It is generally true. Examples are: religion, politics (people like or dislike candidates regardless of the evidence), anti vaxxers (think about all of the outbreaks and deaths due to avoiding vaccinations).

I don't even need to mention astrology, or psi powers to whatever to show that it is true.

[stereologist]

2 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Er ..... nobody said it did. However, seeing a ghost proves to the one who saw it that ghosts exist. (And who cares if no one else believes it?!)

The question comes down to why someone thinks they saw a ghost. Why do people think they see things that do not exist is a very interesting question to me.

Children will see monsters in closets and monsters under beds. When I was young I had myself convinced there was a creature lurking in the toilet ready to attack as soon as I sat down. I have a vague recollection of seeing this monster. 

Today I occasionally see motion in the trees just in my peripheral vision as I go on hikes. I turn my head and nothing is there. I know what it is now, but it still feels as if something is lurking and watching. You are free to guess what this is. A hint is that it is far more common to experience this under dim lighting conditions such as before sunrise or after sunset.

[papageorge1]

6 hours ago, macqdor said:

@papageorge1

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2017/07/31/pseudo-skepticism-the-new-debunking

Sums a lot of things up.

Right on. Essentially it's the same things I concluded about these so-called 'skeptics' (more accurately pseudo-skeptics). They provide a much loved service for those with a dislike of the paranormal and its believers. 

 

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

The question comes down to why someone thinks they saw a ghost. Why do people think they see things that do not exist is a very interesting question to me.

Children will see monsters in closets and monsters under beds. When I was young I had myself convinced there was a creature lurking in the toilet ready to attack as soon as I sat down. I have a vague recollection of seeing this monster. 

Today I occasionally see motion in the trees just in my peripheral vision as I go on hikes. I turn my head and nothing is there. I know what it is now, but it still feels as if something is lurking and watching. You are free to guess what this is. A hint is that it is far more common to experience this under dim lighting conditions such as before sunrise or after sunset.

What I really think goes on is that our once used instincts are still very functional. This can explain a lot of supposed spooks.

[macqdor]

The arrogance skeptics have to tell people. Millions of people over time I might what they saw is not exactly what they saw.

Each persons experience is his/her own experience.  You can take that away from them.    Nor should you try.  Different people have seen different things.   Not everything's a ghost. But there are enough reports for me to conclude (official believer) that something is up.  

truth be told. Seeing a ghost or apparition is not meant for everybody.  Its not Disney Land.  We all can't go there.  The people I talk to that have witnessed things all have two things in common.   Zero cynicism and an open mind.

I'm sure there are other things that are prerequisites for seeing ghosts but those are the top 2.  

You definitely can't be an a $# - hole

[Duke Wellington]

On ‎14‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 11:15 AM, macqdor said:

https://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/the-pantomime-of-debunkery/?fbclid=IwAR00gczg5uW-k2Lud2D_6B5dyIV8Ye2RPg81xtU75NqTYyxC06SlqEHIb18

The Pantomime of Debunker

If anybody goes in with a bad attitude the trick is to ignore them.

The bad attitude is an indication there is something else going on with them.

[XenoFish]

33 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

If anybody goes in with a bad attitude the trick is to ignore them.

The bad attitude is an indication there is something else going on with them.

I only see one person with a bad attitude in this thread.

[Duke Wellington]

39 minutes ago, macqdor said:

The arrogance skeptics have to tell people. Millions of people over time I might what they saw is not exactly what they saw.

Each persons experience is his/her own experience.  You can take that away from them.    Nor should you try.  Different people have seen different things.   Not everything's a ghost. But there are enough reports for me to conclude (official believer) that something is up.  

truth be told. Seeing a ghost or apparition is not meant for everybody.  Its not Disney Land.  We all can't go there.  The people I talk to that have witnessed things all have two things in common.   Zero cynicism and an open mind.

I'm sure there are other things that are prerequisites for seeing ghosts but those are the top 2.  

You definitely can't be an a $# - hole

The only tools available for investigating the brain are CAT scanners, electronic probes, and drugs.

We simply do not have the technological abilities to investigate the true nature of mind or how individual neurons work. When it comes to psychic abilities they are documented in scientific literature but there is a problem with repeatability. With a lack of tools to investigate what causes them and understand what is really going on there is also the problem of there only being subjective opinion as to what is happening collected through interviews.

It is easy to determine if someone has received a 100% fatal does of radiation because they start vomiting and emptying their bowels all over the place within 20 minutes of receiving their dose. They usually last for two days after that. The death comes from radiation destroying their stomach and intestine cells so that electrolyte cannot be absorbed into the blood stream. In the final hours psychic abilities have been documented with them as their low electrolyte levels interfere with the functioning of their brains.

The way I look at things is that we live in a reality where the past and future are coherent with the present. To remain coherent then a structure must exist going backwards and forwards in time with it being linked to the present. Otherwise reality would completely and randomly change from moment to moment. That means there might be the means to acquire information from the past and future or even influence it. But this is my opinion and untested and currently untestable.

[stereologist]

41 minutes ago, macqdor said:

The arrogance skeptics have to tell people. Millions of people over time I might what they saw is not exactly what they saw.

Each persons experience is his/her own experience.  You can take that away from them.    Nor should you try.  Different people have seen different things.   Not everything's a ghost. But there are enough reports for me to conclude (official believer) that something is up.  

truth be told. Seeing a ghost or apparition is not meant for everybody.  Its not Disney Land.  We all can't go there.  The people I talk to that have witnessed things all have two things in common.   Zero cynicism and an open mind.

I'm sure there are other things that are prerequisites for seeing ghosts but those are the top 2.  

You definitely can't be an a $# - hole

Thanks for misrepresenting millions of skeptics all over the world. Such arrogance.

It is true that every person's experience is their own. That's why we all like to do what we do. At an early age we are assisted by our parents and teachers to learn what we are seeing. One of the first ideas that we are assisted with in our learning is object permanence. Games such as peekaboo show us that our personal experience of the disappearing person is incorrect. The person remains.

We are assisted in learning to read and write and comprehend what is being passed along through a number of difference media. These include ways we can learn whether or not the world is flat, or if smoke is what makes electronics work, or whether being thrown clear of an accident makes sense, or if some people have the ability of hang time, etc.

Later on there are other things that are not taught in schools that people can learn about. Are there ghosts, or does astrology work.

People die every year because they take worthless homeopathic medicines and delay treatments that work. People are injured and die each year because they do not take vaccinations. People die in car accidents because they believe it is better to be thrown clear of an accident than to be trapped in an accident by a seat belt. People are scammed out of tens of thousands of dollars each year by fortune tellers and palm readers.

What do those things have to do with ghosts and astrology and psi and UFOs? It pays to be skeptical. It pays not to be a gullible fool. It pays not to waste money on books that are hoaxes, fake medicines, fake financial advice, etc. Ghosts and all of the rest are just a small part of the day to day story telling that bombards us.

A common trait in ghost belief is an unwillingness to consider other explanations. A common trait is to circle the wagons and deny that they can be fooled, or that they've allowed themselves to be tricked.

An open mind does not mean accepting any gibberish thrown your way. That is often how those promoting hoaxes or those that are extremely gullible present the idea. An open mind is one that is willing to examine the issue and then make a decision. An open mind is not a catch basin for all of the trash thrown about. An open mind can and should apply filters.

[stereologist]

54 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

If anybody goes in with a bad attitude the trick is to ignore them.

The bad attitude is an indication there is something else going on with them.

A bad attitude is one in which the person wants people to believe them with no opportunity to say no.

 

[macqdor]

@Habitat

 

there's a meme someone sent me a long time ago of a mother/child conversation.  The child comes screaming to the mom. "Someone ate my choc chip cookie, it was just here." Child's a toddler.  The mom smirks, smiles while looking guilty and bashful and says "son thats horrible, let me help you find it."  The child is comforted by the fact that his mom is going to help find his lost cookie.  He has no idea his cookie is gone. Its never coming back.  He's clueless of the fact that his mom stole his cookie.  They go searching.  The cookie is never found.

That comic of story explains IMO the discussion some of us are having now.  If a spirit, ghost, apparition, or whatever you want to call them doesn't want you to know it exist or for you to see it specifically. Guess what?  You;re not going to see it.  The arrogance of man to think of himself as being the top of all evolutionary food chains.

Man doesn't have all the answers.  We dont even know all the questions. Therefore who is one man to say what another man/women has experienced?

Skeptics act like the people who see ghosts wake up one morning and say 'you know what I think I'm going to see a ghost today.' It doesn't work out that way.  Why ghost appear to some people and not others is a great mystery.   The people who see them don't even know why they see them.  They just do.

The mom who ate her son's cookie (meme) knows her son will never find his cookie.   She ate it.    Both are searching for the cookie. Only person knows where it is.

Same thing with ghosts/spirits.  Only ghosts know where they are and only they have control who they interact with.

Blaming  the person who saw the spirit for not producing the spirit on queue is ludicrous.

 

 

[XenoFish]

The skeptics offer reasonable explanations. It's up to the believer what to do with it. 

It does seem that the anti-science crowd loves using words like materialism, skepticism, and my favorite scientism as sly insults.

To put it basic, if the skeptics don't agree they are narrow minded idiots. 

[stereologist]

6 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The only tools available for investigating the brain are CAT scanners, electronic probes, and drugs.

We simply do not have the technological abilities to investigate the true nature of mind or how individual neurons work. When it comes to psychic abilities they are documented in scientific literature but there is a problem with repeatability. With a lack of tools to investigate what causes them and understand what is really going on there is also the problem of there only being subjective opinion as to what is happening collected through interviews.

It is easy to determine if someone has received a 100% fatal does of radiation because they start vomiting and emptying their bowels all over the place within 20 minutes of receiving their dose. They usually last for two days after that. The death comes from radiation destroying their stomach and intestine cells so that electrolyte cannot be absorbed into the blood stream. In the final hours psychic abilities have been documented with them as their low electrolyte levels interfere with the functioning of their brains.

The way I look at things is that we live in a reality where the past and future are coherent with the present. To remain coherent then a structure must exist going backwards and forwards in time with it being linked to the present. Otherwise reality would completely and randomly change from moment to moment. That means there might be the means to acquire information from the past and future or even influence it. But this is my opinion and untested and currently untestable.

I have to disagree on a fine point and that is the individual neuron issue. Studies have been doing that for years. Here is an example.

https://www.livescience.com/7653-single-brain-cell-hold-memory.html

There seems to be little documentation of psychic abilities. The failure to show that they exist has been reduced to finding instances in which someone exceeds statistical expectations. Improving experimental conditions leads to this going away.

I looked but I did not see anything supporting your statements of radiation overdose, i.e. lethal dose, and psychic abilities. Care to show me?

[esoteric_toad]

The problem I see is that somehow it is deemed "wrong" or "arrogant" to want explanation and evidence, by some.

It is "right" to accept anecdote without question.

Imagine the horrors that could be, and have been, let loose if everyone accepted anecdote without question, without evidence and without ruling out fact/fiction/misunderstanding/hoaxes.