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

macqdor
Quote

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.

Its OK to have questions.  But IMO the questionnaire person should have the fundamental basics down of what it is there asking?  And the fundamentals are not that much. 

Example:

Occupant:  I saw a couch levitate in my house, objects fly all the time.

Skeptic: BS! Show me!  where's the video?  If its that active there would be video!

Occupant:  we tried capturing it on film/video.  Activity increases, and the video(tool) we used gets trashed or goes missing

Skeptic: BS, I call BS

If the skeptic understood poltergeist or had the fundamentals down.  They doesn't necessarily have to believe it, but if they understood it, studied it.  They'd know off the bat.   The difficulty of capturing evidence on film is not a cop out. Its not cause for hoaxing. Not all the time. Its actually a symptom. A characteristic.  The spirits ability to avoid detection has been documented for over 500 years.  

 

Most skeptics don't except that answer as being legit.  They throw up the "BS" flag and there ends the discussion

Most skeptics dont mind map witness testimony. I'm talking years and years of witness testimony and look for trends.  They refuse to see baselines

@esoteric_toad

if thats not close minded. I dont know what is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 minute ago, esoteric_toad said:

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.

 

 

I can help you out with that:

Bernie Madoff

Ted Bundy

These are of course extreme examples. 

How about this person who spread horrors leading to deaths.

https://www.discussionist.com/10151583381

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

I suppose if I experienced the "poltergeist" thing myself I would understand it.

Until then, yes, I am calling BS. When historical accounts of "poltergeists" have been investigated and deemed "authentic" by "researchers" most have been later deemed "likely hoaxes". 

Your poltergeists open a scary world if people accepted them as you do. Don't want to go to work? Poltergeists prevented me (hid my keys, broke my car, locked the doors). Kill someone? (Poltergeist did it). House burned down? Poltergeists. Spent all your money? Poltergeists ordered a bunch of stuff off amazon. Any and all problems, poltergeists are to blame.

Close minded? I do not think so. I think it is more a case of unless someone experiences what you claim is happening they have every reasonable reason to not accept it. That doesn't make someone close minded. There is NOTHING that exists that has the abilities you say "poltergeists" have, there is no frame of reference for anyone to accept it in the first place. Just stories and nothing more.

Close minded is telling everyone else how close minded they are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad
4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I can help you out with that:

Bernie Madoff

Ted Bundy

These are of course extreme examples. 

How about this person who spread horrors leading to deaths.

https://www.discussionist.com/10151583381

 

 

Definitely and so so many more. Millions have died accepting anecdote. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Close minded is telling everyone else how close minded they are.

close minded is not liking the answer given.  The answer might be the truth. Just might not be the answer you wanted to here.  Most skeptics call BS on answers they don't here.

Like I said there's not much energy being expended  to do your on poltergeist research. Or any research for that matter.  If you dont have the fundamentals down, everything hitting your ears is going sound like BS.

what do have to loose?  I'm speaking generally of course.

@esoteric_toad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
10 minutes ago, macqdor said:

Its OK to have questions.  But IMO the questionnaire person should have the fundamental basics down of what it is there asking?  And the fundamentals are not that much. 

Example:

Occupant:  I saw a couch levitate in my house, objects fly all the time.

Skeptic: BS! Show me!  where's the video?  If its that active there would be video!

Occupant:  we tried capturing it on film/video.  Activity increases, and the video(tool) we used gets trashed or goes missing

Skeptic: BS, I call BS

If the skeptic understood poltergeist or had the fundamentals down.  They doesn't necessarily have to believe it, but if they understood it, studied it.  They'd know off the bat.   The difficulty of capturing evidence on film is not a cop out. Its not cause for hoaxing. Not all the time. Its actually a symptom. A characteristic.  The spirits ability to avoid detection has been documented for over 500 years.  

 

Most skeptics don't except that answer as being legit.  They throw up the "BS" flag and there ends the discussion

Most skeptics dont mind map witness testimony. I'm talking years and years of witness testimony and look for trends.  They refuse to see baselines

@esoteric_toad

if thats not close minded. I dont know what is.

 

 

Apparently you don't know the meaning of close minded. You also don't present a skeptic but a scoffer. Add that to the list of other words you get wrong.

All I see here is the same old tired excuse which is based on an argument of personal incompetence. Not only do you suggest you are unable to collect evidence, but you want to generalize your own personal incompetence onto others.

Real scientists deal with that issue all of the time. How to collect data and do it so that the collected data is meaningful. They examine confounding issues and develop experiments.

Scientists are able to understand the magnetic fields of the Sun without traveling there. Scientists are able to test acupuncture in double blinded experiments. These people are clever. Despite the clever and insightful methodologies used by scientists around the world there is still the excuse that it cannot be done.

Of course someone that finds this excuse as being unacceptable is not going to believe this is a legitimate excuse. I see it as a means to perpetuate a hoax or at best an unwillingness to get to the bottom of whatever is happening.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 minutes ago, macqdor said:

close minded is not liking the answer given.  The answer might be the truth. Just might not be the answer you wanted to here.  Most skeptics call BS on answers they don't here.

Like I said there's not much energy being expended  to do your on poltergeist research. Or any research for that matter.  If you dont have the fundamentals down, everything hitting your ears is going sound like BS.

what do have to loose?  I'm speaking generally of course.

@esoteric_toad

That's wrong. You clearly have no idea what open minded and close minded mean. Here is a tutorial.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
esoteric_toad

I see a lot about anecdotal eye witness accounts and how important they are. Here are a few links that might be interesting. Granted they are mostly about criminal cases but it highlights just how unreliable eyewitness accounts are:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/november-2014-eyewitness.cfm
http://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/the-science-of-why-eyewitness-testimony-is-often-wrong/

Of course those all were likely written by close minded skeptics /s

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
30 minutes ago, stereologist said:

That's wrong. You clearly have no idea what open minded and close minded mean. Here is a tutorial.

 

Great video.

Thank you.

It seems to come up many times in the threads on this site.

As someone else pointed out, skeptical = closed minded to many of the proponents of the supernatural. 

Yet they admit they have no way/ aren't here to prove anything.

It is then pretty unrealistic to expect somebody to accept an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence. 

I can believe you had a tuna fish sandwich for lunch because that's a pretty mundane claim. You very well could be lying and ate a ham and cheese sandwich. 

But when you claim somebody came back from the dead or your couch levitated across the room I'm going to have some reservations in believing those claims.

Simply put, it's better to ask more questions and get more information before coming to a conclusion about extraordinary claims.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The OP is the kind of person who comes up with ridiculous claims to fill in ignorance.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
57 minutes ago, macqdor said:

close minded is not liking the answer given.  The answer might be the truth. Just might not be the answer you wanted to here.  Most skeptics call BS on answers they don't here.

Like I said there's not much energy being expended  to do your on poltergeist research. Or any research for that matter.  If you dont have the fundamentals down, everything hitting your ears is going sound like BS.

What kind of research is "I don't know, ghosts did it" ?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

I kind of get the feeling that the whole point of this thread is to bash skeptics.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
5 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

What kind of research is "I don't know, ghosts did it" ?

I know I know.

It's called ancient alien research.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

What kind of research is "I don't know, ghosts did it" ?

Quote

 

your own research.  your own curiosity.

@Rlyeh

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The article in the OP is written by someone that does not believe in the paranormal.

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

What is skipped over by the OP is that the blog post states that cases can be investigated. It is a puzzle to work out. They also point out that the burden of proof is on the claimant. They need to show it is paranormal and not expect people just to believe. They point out how people interpret event differently: some people see prosaic explanations and other defer to the paranormal. Memories are poor and change over time. Proponents of the paranormal just want someone to believe them. They resist evidence. There are regular people that go for the paranormal and there are jerks, too.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

I see a lot about anecdotal eye witness accounts and how important they are. Here are a few links that might be interesting. Granted they are mostly about criminal cases but it highlights just how unreliable eyewitness accounts are:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/november-2014-eyewitness.cfm
http://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-little-we-can-trust-eyewitnesses-67663
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/the-science-of-why-eyewitness-testimony-is-often-wrong/

Of course those all were likely written by close minded skeptics /s

How important  and reliable are yours when:

  • driving
  • working
  • shopping
  • typing like now
  • when reading
  • how and the world did you learn (we humans learn) to read and communicate with this much unreliable eyewitness stuff.

I love it when a skeptic uses that science analogy of the eyes are really reliable and shouldn't be trusted when it comes to all things anecdotal.  You guys got me calling BS now LOL

The eyes are fine.  They see and tell us things.  They connect to the brain and they help us comprehend and learn things.  Combine them with the other senses.  The eye's are a reliable tool for just about anything

if you trust yourself behind a steering wheel(with the eyes you have) then you can trust another persons account based on what they've seen

You skeptics are just loyal to your own world view.

 

@esoteric_toad

If you saw an an item levitated and did cartwheel before settling back down (with your own eyes) you'd be in the same boat us believers in

Your problem is trust. Has nothing to do with eyes and anecdotal stuff.  That's been your cop out the past few centuries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
12 minutes ago, macqdor said:

You skeptics are just loyal to your own world view.

The problem is you don't know that view, you don't know where some of us come from. Our own beliefs and experiences. Why we are skeptical. You know none of that. You only want to box us all under the same label. Skepticism is a problem for you, because it pokes holes in the ghost stories. 

I have yet to see a thread of yours that doesn't devolve into you slandering and pretty much insulting others because they don't conform to your "reality". All you really want is an echo chamber.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rashore

Everyone please... let's all keep our commentary civil and constructive please. Enough with the bickering about each other. Indeed too many of these threads end up closed due to multiple members bad participation rather than the topics themselves.

As always, please pay mind to the rules we all agreed to as members on UM, found here: https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/guidelines/

rashore, moderating team.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
19 minutes ago, macqdor said:

How important  and reliable are yours when:

  • driving
  • working
  • shopping
  • typing like now
  • when reading
  • how and the world did you learn (we humans learn) to read and communicate with this much unreliable eyewitness stuff.

I love it when a skeptic uses that science analogy of the eyes are really reliable and shouldn't be trusted when it comes to all things anecdotal.  You guys got me calling BS now LOL

The eyes are fine.  They see and tell us things.  They connect to the brain and they help us comprehend and learn things.  Combine them with the other senses.  The eye's are a reliable tool for just about anything

if you trust yourself behind a steering wheel(with the eyes you have) then you can trust another persons account based on what they've seen

You skeptics are just loyal to your own world view.

This is what is known as a straw man argument.

The issue is eyewitness testimony and memory. How valid is memory.

In driving, working, shopping, typing, and reading the issue is about the ability to see and not the topic which is memory.

This is a classic example of a straw man argument in which the response does not address the issues in the original statement.

My guess is that none of the links were checked. 

Let's see what is in the links and how the post is a straw man argument.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Quote

Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?

That has nothing to do with eyesight. 

Here is the gist of the article.

Quote

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them.

Here is the next link

https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/november-2014-eyewitness.cfm

Quote

Time and again, research has proven that memory can be brittle, rangy, and easily influenced. Certainly, memories can be true; however, they are undoubtedly shaped by the telling and the listener. They can be exact, but they are more often imprecise, wrought by flights of fancy and fear.

Again this is about memory and not about eyesight.

It might be better to address the actual content of the post and not some straw man argument.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
Posted (edited)

There's a big difference between being skeptical of someone who is misreading/misrepresenting evidence and being skeptical of someone who is a flat-out liar.

I do not think most of the believers on this site are liars, it's just that the evidence they provide isn't any good. If they had anything good I would consider it. However, there are a vocal few (who shall not be named) who I have no doubt are liars. Nothing they say or do can be trusted or taken seriously - and for some reason, these are the ones who try the hardest.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DingoLingo
On 4/18/2019 at 4:08 AM, macqdor said:

your own research.  your own curiosity.

@Rlyeh

 

you know I think you seem to miss the things that you have been told time and again,

Pretty much most of us skeptics on here, started out as believers in something, then we started to question.

and I will say it again

used to believe, heavily, ghosts, psi, aliens etc. 

Then I started to question these so called facts that were thrown about by the different paranormal community, started to question the how when and whys, and that is when I became a skeptic, because there is no facts behind the statements made by the paranormal communities

so when you tell me to read this book research this story etc, I have been there and done that, all you would be doing is creating a double blind experiment where I will reach the same conclusion  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
8 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

so when you tell me to read this book research this story

That's all we have are stories. People exaggerate intentionally or unintentionally. They may hype it up to be more than it really was. Things can be misunderstood. A lot of the stories presented here have that "It was late o'clock at night and I saw a...." Then you have people who just feed off this kinda of stuff. Giving the supposed event a % as to how paranormal it is without any actual supporting evidence. Just like ufo's we have ghost video spammers who only want youtube hits or they are basically using this forum as a sales platform. But don't you dare criticize the "evidence". Because that would make you narrow minded and other various insults.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Posted (edited)

@DingoLingo

 

Many people have believed something and over time fallen out of belief.  The reasons as to why that happens varies.  I can't argue the legitimacy of every paranormal category (UFO, Aliens, Bigfoot, Ghosts, etc) I can only argue and defend profusely the events I've witnessed and experienced.   April 30th, 2012, I didn't know what a poltergeist was.  I didn't know what a ghost was. What an apparition was.  I didn't care.   No one starts their day by saying 'I hope the bibles that I own catch fire.' 'I hope I see wall writings in my office' when I get home from work.   No one's moves into a house with the purpose of seeing furniture fly.    I know I didn't.   These extraordinary feats present themselves to the viewer on their own terms.   The word unpredictable doesn't even come close to defining accurately.

I'm a believer 100% now based on my own experience. That started May 1, 2012.   I've married my experience to the experience of others, the world over and will continue to do. I research. I read.  I ask real questions. I refuse to adopt this level of cynicism that seems prevalent in the skeptic community.    I refuse to be an intellectual a%% hole.   World view?  Detriment to learning anything new IMO.   

A professor once told me. 

Quote

The reason we dont have the answers to life questions (which includes the poltergeist) is because we don't know how to ask the right questions.

  

Edited by macqdor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Posted (edited)
Quote

That's all we have are stories. People exaggerate intentionally or unintentionally. They may hype it up to be more than it really was. Things can be misunderstood. A lot of the stories presented here have that "It was late o'clock at night and I saw a...." Then you have people who just feed off this kinda of stuff. Giving the supposed event a % as to how paranormal it is without any actual supporting evidence. Just like ufo's we have ghost video spammers who only want youtube hits or they are basically using this forum as a sales platform. But don't you dare criticize the "evidence". Because that would make you narrow minded and other various insults

IMO that's an excuse. A weak excuse for not wanting to learn.   That's the cynicism I spoke about in the above post.   That beholden to one's world view.  If you're not willing to entertain the thought of moving your intellectual needle on the subject matter (+/-)  then the question/answer of why you're even here is more dubious.

Quote

Excuses are tools of incompetence used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness, and those who use them seldom specialize in anything else.”

@XenoFish

 

I pity people who box themselves in intellectually.  Surround themselves with excuses that benefit no one.  Especially themselves. 

 

Edited by macqdor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

You got any real proof? I mean real evidence? No, of course not. None of you ever do. 

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.