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 -
macqdor

The Pantomime of Debunkery

106 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Not necessarily, I only believe what I have very strong reason to believe.

You make correlations with one size fits all superstitions. I wouldn't say that's a strong reason. I'd call it strong conviction to a predetermined idea that appeals to you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Neither does actual proof  your a perfect example of that. 

Its not uncommon for a believer to pull that cloak of superstition ever tighter about themselves whenever properly challenged. 

You're a good example of that too. 

No, I am 100% convinced, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the why and wherefore of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija
37 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Don't forget, not all paranormal experiences can be proved ..... maybe even most .... they happen unexpectedly and are over in a flash. 

 

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Hey, feel free to prove me wrong. Name a paranormal incident that is beyond doubt. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Obviously there aren't any, so what can we safely deduce from that ? 

Not according to ouija ouija. 

16 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

Another sweeping generalisation that isn't true.

 

See. 

 

Quote

Suppose your were the witness to something that convinced you, what then would you deduce about there being no conclusive case ?

I wouldn't jump on a superstition and call it quits that's for sure. I'd seek a way to evidence it before labelling it. It's the only sensible thing to do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, I am 100% convinced, but that doesn't mean I claim to know the why and wherefore of it.

You're convinced dead people send you messages. The fact we can't survive death should make a rational person second guess that option. 

You see where I'm going with this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

I'd seek a way to evidence it before labelling it. It's the only sensible thing to do. 

What way ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, psyche101 said:

You're convinced dead people send you messages. The fact we can't survive death should make a rational person second guess that option. 

You see where I'm going with this? 

Apparently not a fact that people don't survive death, from what I've seen. But it may only be for exceptional people. I just don't know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
6 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

 

 

You said that my statement of not one being proved was a sweeping gereralisation which was not true. 

So what's been proven? What makes that statement not true? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What way ?

That depends on the incident now doesn't it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Apparently not a fact that people don't survive death, from what I've seen. But it may only be for exceptional people. I just don't know.

From what you've seen. 

That's where it all falls apart. You just can't accept that it does. 

I don't know about exceptional. I've not seen you exhibit exceptional qualities. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, psyche101 said:

That depends on the incident now doesn't it! 

You mean you'd set up cameras ? Can't see what other evidence you could mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, psyche101 said:

From what you've seen. 

That's where it all falls apart. You just can't accept that it does. 

I don't know about exceptional. I've not seen you exhibit exceptional qualities. 

Doesn't fall apart for me, it is quite unassailable, from where I'm standing. As I said before, what would you then deduce, if something that convinced you occurred, about the complete absence of transmissable, convincing evidence ? How is that possible ? I'm telling you it is the fact of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

You mean you'd set up cameras ? Can't see what other evidence you could mean

It depends on the incident. If it's only noises then that wouldn't be particularly helpful. But I would have many recording instruments running 24/7 for sure. If predictions, I'd make predictions well known before their occurences. 

I wouldn't default to superstition as a conclusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I wouldn't default to superstition as a conclusion. 

Quite right. But that doesn't mean you must remain in that stance, because one thing is for sure, you won't have it confirmed by anyone else, unless they were there too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Doesn't fall apart for me, it is quite unassailable, from where I'm standing.

Just as the man who thinks he is Napoleon isn't dettered by the many who say he is not. I bet such a character would deride professionals just as you deride world leading physicists to prop up your pet theory. 

4 minutes ago, Habitat said:

As I said before, what would you then deduce, if something that convinced you occurred, about the complete absence of transmissable, convincing evidence ? How is that possible ? I'm telling you it is the fact of the matter.

Its not possible Hab. You don't seem to get that. If anything is disturbed, affected or detected in this existence, then it can be captured and recorded. That's just how things work. If it cannot, then clearly it didn't happen. Non transferable evidence is either misinterpretation or hallucination. That is far more common in our species than physics being completely wrong is. And that is actually fact. Saying evidence cannot be transferred is just a cop out. And quite frankly, it's a silly thing to say. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, psyche101 said:

Its not possible Hab.

It is not only possible, it is a fact, and causes great wonderment as to how this is possible. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Quite right. But that doesn't mean you must remain in that stance, because one thing is for sure, you won't have it confirmed by anyone else, unless they were there too. 

Of course not. If such a thing really was to happen, and evidence supported a conclusion based in superstition, then that would be that. The incident would add to our knowledge and would be labelled fact instead of superstition. We are observers only, we have no say in the conclusion. 

However, as I stated earlier, that's never happened. Which strongly supports that superstition is not valid. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

It is not only possible, it is a fact, and causes great wonderment as to how this is possible. 

It is far more likely that a flawed conclusion has been arrived at. 

If fact, then it can be demonstrated. If not, it's just an anecdote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

It is far more likely that a flawed conclusion has been arrived at. 

If fact, then it can be demonstrated. If not, it's just an anecdote. 

Nope, it won't be captured.  But it certainly is an anecdote, that part you have right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
58 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

A sweeping generalisation that simply isn't true.              

Telling a ghost story doesn't prove ghost exist. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grey Area
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Not one has been proven, across all time and across the globe. Doesn't that say something? 

That's quite an interesting statement.  Logically, once a 'paranormal' phenomenon is proven, it is no longer 'paranormal'.

I would suggest that at one time, perhaps reasonably recently the phenomenon of 'shooting stars' would have been classed as paranormal.  St Elmo's fire is another that I would apply the paranormal 'solved' badge to.  I guess it depends on your definition of paranormal and it's usage. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Nope, it won't be captured.  But it certainly is an anecdote, that part you have right.

That's not how things work. If a sound is made, an object moves, any light spectrum, any physical action can indeed be recorded. Any prediction can be voiced prior to the event. It's simply ridiculous to suggest none of that is possible. What could make evidence non transferable, and why would human error not enter the equation and as the most likely option? And why hasn't this happened once in human history under controlled conditions? If jesus actually existed and was still alive today, even he could be guaranteed to have won lotto twice so far had he entered the same numbers every week! Yet nothing from the many alive, and those gone. Not one proof. Ever. 

You don't seem to factor that into your absolute conclusions. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

If ghost were proven to exist, that opens a whole new branch of physics. Even biology and neuroscience as well. Because if ghost exist it would be easy to assume a soul does. Same goes for psychic abilities, especially telekinesis. The problem is the lack of evidence and the mass of anecdotal stories. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

That's quite an interesting statement.  Logically, once a 'paranormal' phenomenon is proven, it is no longer 'paranormal'.

I would suggest that at one time, perhaps reasonably recently the phenomenon of 'shooting stars' would have been classed as paranormal.  St Elmo's fire is another that I would apply the paranormal 'solved' badge to.  I guess it depends on your definition of paranormal and it's usage. 

Quite possible. Although I have to say I don't think science ever rejected the phenomenon as the evidence is overwhelming. Tesla even artificially produced St Elmo's Fire, and I thought meteors were considered an atmospheric phenomena like lightning. I'm not sure they were doubted at all. Misinterpreted, sure. 

But yes. Confirmation would change everything, but what is more convincing again are the observations in science that discount superstitions. I'm sure there is truckloads to learn, don't get me wrong, but things aren't stacking up in favour of superstitions. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not one proof. Ever. 

You don't seem to factor that into your absolute conclusions. 

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".

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.