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 -
SeekTruth

I Want To Believe

399 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Timothy
On 7/15/2020 at 7:18 AM, SeekTruth said:

I'm an open-minded fella, and I would love to believe in ghosts, since that would suggest that human consciousness doesn't end at death. But I must put logic and evidence before my desires, lest I succumb to wishful thinking.  Why is it that I haven't seen or experienced a ghost? Do they not like me? 

If you really want to believe, it’s easy.

Just forget the logic. Then you are free to believe!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
On 7/14/2020 at 5:18 PM, SeekTruth said:

I'm an open-minded fella, and I would love to believe in ghosts, since that would suggest that human consciousness doesn't end at death. But I must put logic and evidence before my desires, lest I succumb to wishful thinking.  Why is it that I haven't seen or experienced a ghost? Do they not like me? 

Should a ghost have an agenda to visit you? They have their own agenda, not ours. 

Anyway, being real and objective and not wanting to succumb to wishful thinking, I find the evidence for life after death overwhelming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Should a ghost have an agenda to visit you? They have their own agenda, not ours. 

Anyway, being real and objective and not wanting to succumb to wishful thinking, I find the evidence for life after death overwhelming. 

That’s unfortunately succumbing to wishful thinking, due to lack of any real and compelling evidence as always.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
5 hours ago, Timothy said:

That’s unfortunately succumbing to wishful thinking, due to lack of any real and compelling evidence as always.

'real and compelling' are subjective terms in this context. We each judge what we consider real and compelling. I do find real and compelling evidence for the afterlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
18 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Should a ghost have an agenda to visit you? They have their own agenda, not ours. 

Anyway, being real and objective and not wanting to succumb to wishful thinking, I find the evidence for life after death overwhelming. 

You are succumbing to wishful thinking. Zammit is a lawyer who is making appeals to authority. He had no evidence, he has a lateral view.

Real evidence is physics, which defies life after death ideas. You don't consider that at all. You brush it aside with some ridiculous claim that science will be rewritten to include the paranormal one day. That too is wishful thinking which is entirely unsupported. It's not a valid concept by reason and logic.

Anecdotes are overwhelming. Evidence, not so much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
20 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

You are succumbing to wishful thinking. Zammit is a lawyer who is making appeals to authority. He had no evidence, he has a lateral view.

Real evidence is physics, which defies life after death ideas. You don't consider that at all. You brush it aside with some ridiculous claim that science will be rewritten to include the paranormal one day. That too is wishful thinking which is entirely unsupported. It's not a valid concept by reason and logic.

Anecdotes are overwhelming. Evidence, not so much.

It may never sink in to you what evidence means.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
Just now, papageorge1 said:

It may never sink in to you what evidence means.

Not your version no. I run with the dictionary definition like most sensible people do.

evidence

/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

Learn to pronounce

noun

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

Where are your facts and information? You have none. You have some tall tales and campfire stories. That's it.

And you don't even consider the body of anecdotes. You illustrated this in your Bigfoot Belief where you ignore that larger portion of claims explaining a very terrestrial situation and instead champion a completely unevidenced vague reference without names or any sort of supporting information, from a personal website because it supports your favourite belief. Not to mention an actual tracker, Piney, is completely dismissed by you for a small sample of ambiguous unevidenced stories from a dubious source.

I doubt many subscribe to your definition of evidence. You are an enemy of reason. And you welch on bets, which says even more than the above does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
26 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not your version no. I run with the dictionary definition like most sensible people do.

evidence

/ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/

Learn to pronounce

noun

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"

Where are your facts and information? You have none. You have some tall tales and campfire stories. That's it.

And you don't even consider the body of anecdotes. You illustrated this in your Bigfoot Belief where you ignore that larger portion of claims explaining a very terrestrial situation and instead champion a completely unevidenced vague reference without names or any sort of supporting information, from a personal website because it supports your favourite belief. Not to mention an actual tracker, Piney, is completely dismissed by you for a small sample of ambiguous unevidenced stories from a dubious source.

I doubt many subscribe to your definition of evidence. You are an enemy of reason. And you welch on bets, which says even more than the above does. 

A person claims to see a ghost. That is evidence for that ghost. Perhaps weak evidence.

Millions have claimed to see ghosts. That is evidence for ghosts. Quite strong evidence.

See what I’m saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

A person claims to see a ghost. That is evidence for that ghost. Perhaps weak evidence.

Millions have claimed to see ghosts. That is evidence for ghosts. Quite strong evidence.

See what I’m saying?

No. It's not evidence. It's an anecdote.

Read the definition of evidence above. How does it qualify?

As I have established already, evidence is made up of proof and information.

Definition of proof:

proof

/pruːf/

noun

1.

evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

Definition of information:

information

/ɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

1.

facts provided or learned about something or someone.

"a vital piece of information"

How do your claims fulfill the above? They do not.

So no. A person claiming to see a ghost is not evidence. 

What you are saying is that you think the plural of anecdote is data.

It's not.

I see what you are saying. It's wrong. That is not evidence. That is barely even an appeal from authority. 

 

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
41 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No. It's not evidence. It's an anecdote.

Read the definition of evidence above. How does it qualify?

As I have established already, evidence is made up of proof and information.

Definition of proof:

proof

/pruːf/

noun

1.

evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"

Definition of information:

information

/ɪnfəˈmeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

1.

facts provided or learned about something or someone.

"a vital piece of information"

How do your claims fulfill the above? They do not.

So no. A person claiming to see a ghost is not evidence. 

What you are saying is that you think the plural of anecdote is data.

It's not.

I see what you are saying. It's wrong. That is not evidence. That is barely even an appeal from authority. 

 

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument

Try looking up ‘anecdotal evidence’.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
31 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Try looking up ‘anecdotal evidence’.

Shouldn't you have done that and shown if it supports your argument?

If you had, you would have seen it does not.

Anecdotal evidence:

See also: Cherry picking

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[5] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy[6] and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.

In all forms of anecdotal evidence its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.

It's not only rubbish, it supports the previous links 

So we are back to square one aren't we? 

How do anecdotes qualify as evidence?

They don't.

Edited by psyche101
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
27 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Try looking up ‘anecdotal evidence’.

Gladly. I think you should have taken your own advice first though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[14] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.[15]"

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.[16] "

"By contrast, in science and logic, the "relative strength of an explanation" is based upon its ability to be:

  • tested or repeated
  • proven to be due to the stated cause, and
  • verifiable under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves."
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Greetings.  I’ve read this thread.  I’d like to ask about these devices that are being used by people who claim to investigate this phenomenon, I believe they are called ghost boxes or talk boxes or something like that.  They apparently are used to communicate with spirits by capturing EVP’s.  Has anyone used these devices?

If you found a place that was reportedly haunted, and you used one of these devices.....you know asking questions and recording an answer if there is one.....and you know for a fact the place was empty, and you were there alone and the only audible voice speaking, and did in fact record an answer or responses to your questions....

How would this impact your view of the topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
13 minutes ago, Guyver said:

How would this impact your view of the topic?

Cassette recorder used during a few evocation in the late 90's. Thought I'd made contact. Only later to learn what a combination of expectation and audiotory pareidolia can do. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
12 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Gladly. I think you should have taken your own advice first though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

"Anecdotal evidence is considered the least certain type of scientific information.[14] Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as validating evidence.[15]"

"Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.[16] "

"By contrast, in science and logic, the "relative strength of an explanation" is based upon its ability to be:

  • tested or repeated
  • proven to be due to the stated cause, and
  • verifiable under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves."

So there is such a thing as 'anecdotal evidence': I am sure that won't stop some thick minds here from saying anecdotes are not evidence in the next thread again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Shouldn't you have done that and shown if it supports your argument?

If you had, you would have seen it does not.

Anecdotal evidence:

See also: Cherry picking

When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[5] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy[6] and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical.

In all forms of anecdotal evidence its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation, leaving verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.

It's not only rubbish, it supports the previous links 

So we are back to square one aren't we? 

How do anecdotes qualify as evidence?

They don't.

So there is such a thing as 'anecdotal evidence': I am sure that won't stop some thick minds here from saying anecdotes are not evidence in the next thread again.

Share this post


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

So there is such a thing as 'anecdotal evidence': I am sure that won't stop some thick minds here from saying anecdotes are not evidence in the next thread again.

Semantics. Did you even bother to read what psyche or I posted? It completely refutes the way you use the term evidence. You are conflating them term anecdotal evidence with the term validating evidence. 

Anecdotal evidence is the only thing you have yet somehow it has convinced you "beyond all reasonable doubt" that myriad of paranormal/supernatural events occur. The faults in your investigative methods are  outlined in both responses to you yet you ignored all the information given and still consider anecdotal evidence to hold massive amounts of credibility.

I noticed how you didn't bother to refute any of the many flaws presented when dealing with anecdotal evidence.

Your cognitive biases are a detriment to any rational conversation to be had regarding anything.

Your constant fallacious reasoning is stupefying and when pointed out all you can muster is a two sentence rebuttal that addresses exactly none of the points made against your point. 

Nobody is claiming that anecdotal evidence does not exist. Merely that it doesn't provide any decent quality of evidence compared to scientific evidence. 

We are simply pointing out the many flaws associated with it and why it should not be used solely to draw conclusions from. 

Flaws that you do not want to address because of your conformation bias.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish

Believing in the possibility of something is one thing. Being adamant in your belief in that something where you deny all contradictory information is another. Then again being so desperate to believe that you believe everything is another beast all together. 

Just speaking for myself. If factual evidence contradicts my views then I change my views. In regards to the paranormal/supernatural/metaphysical I'm still waiting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

I don’t believe or disbelieve in ghosts.  I am open to the possibility of them....but it’s not something I want to believe in because that would be a little creepy/scary to me.  If these ghosts that push people down stairs or scratch people on the back are real, then I wouldn’t want anything to do with them whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver

Hearing a clear voice answering my questions on one of those new machines would be enough evidence for me that there is something to the phenomenon.

Share this post


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

Semantics. Did you even bother to read what psyche or I posted? It completely refutes the way you use the term evidence. You are conflating them term anecdotal evidence with the term validating evidence. 

 

Yes, I read it and already knew all that as it is common sense to me by now. And nope, I don't think 'anecdotal evidence is 'validating evidence' but rather 'evidence to be considered'.
 

2 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Anecdotal evidence is the only thing you have yet somehow it has convinced you "beyond all reasonable doubt" that myriad of paranormal/supernatural events occur. The faults in your investigative methods are  outlined in both responses to you yet you ignored all the information given and still consider anecdotal evidence to hold massive amounts of credibility.

I noticed how you didn't bother to refute any of the many flaws presented when dealing with anecdotal evidence.

I have always been aware of the imperfections of anecdotal evidence so I don't dispute anything.

2 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Your cognitive biases are a detriment to any rational conversation to be had regarding anything.

Your constant fallacious reasoning is stupefying and when pointed out all you can muster is a two sentence rebuttal that addresses exactly none of the points made against your point. 

Nobody is claiming that anecdotal evidence does not exist. Merely that it doesn't provide any decent quality of evidence compared to scientific evidence. 

We are simply pointing out the many flaws associated with it and why it should not be used solely to draw conclusions from. 

Flaws that you do not want to address because of your conformation bias.

I fully consider the value and imperfections with anecdotal evidence.

A sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can have me believing something beyond reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
3 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Hearing a clear voice answering my questions on one of those new machines would be enough evidence for me that there is something to the phenomenon.

I even consider it strong evidence when it happens to enough others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I even consider it strong evidence when it happens to enough others.

Ok.  If it were from a trustworthy source, that’s one thing.  But, these people on tv?  I think it’s too frequently fiction to be accepted.  IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Guyver said:

Ok.  If it were from a trustworthy source, that’s one thing.  But, these people on tv?  I think it’s too frequently fiction to be accepted.  IMO.

I don't think they fabricate something like that on the better shows. Being a paranormal internet sniffer I have also heard from folks that are not getting any TV publicity. Even if there are liars there are truthers (the majority I think)  too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeno-Fish
31 minutes ago, Guyver said:

 But, these people on tv?

Money and ratings are the name of the game. Not to mention marketing stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.