You Are Right, But You Are Wrong.

[danydandan]

20 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No, but that has nothing to do with your terse comment about "prove it".  You are missing my point.  I know someone else called Pascals comment "mind games" and it is in a way.  If your goal is to alienate people go ahead and use that sentence, but you will not get any reasonable responses from it nor discussion.  What is you want, to feel superior to discuss issues, beliefs, experiences?  If you have never had or noticed (usually that is the key to it, noticing) an out of the ordinary, unexplainable experience then you don't have to worry about anyone treating you the same way you treat them, I suppose, but what if you did have an experience you want to discuss, how will you react to the demand to "prove it"?

You haven't answered my question, how would you approach asking someone for proof, evidence or whatever regarding a claim without causing an argument? 

My goal? Is to not use that sentence, as it almost always undermines my reason for asking the question. Curiosity. Answering this curiosity is my goal I suppose.

I'm agnostic by nature, never really make my mind up without in-depth analysis, thus asking for evidence etcetera is usually required. 

The whole point of this thread to avoid this blunt tact I usually use. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by danydandan

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

In that specific example you could start by saying "I know some people are taught that however..."  But really that kind of thing is not debatable as anyone who states that and believes it is not going to defer to anyone else's "opinion" or knowledge.  

This is a really good point. 

Choose your battles wisely. No point in arguing with zealots, but one can still converse with one. 

[danydandan]

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I was going to mention after you posted earlier that despite things going down hill when you respond with 'it's your claim, prove it', which I don't doubt, I don't think it's a good example actually of what is talked about in the OP.  The OP I think accurately says that people are resistant to situations where they are forced into, "‘I’m going to defer to you as the authority on this.", which is understandable.  But I don't think that should apply to your statement which is far more basic and applies to everyone.  I don't read 'your claim, prove it' as a request for deference, I read it just as a reminder of the way things work, for everyone.

One thing I also am not sure about is how to 'see it from the other side' on certain topics.  I can't see in any meaningful sense how someone arrives at the idea that the earth is 6000 years old for example, so it would be a lie for me to say 'you're right about' something related to that as the intro to what I think they are wrong about.

The whole, " your claim prove it" is my usual way of going about debating, discussing or whatever. 

It simply does not work. 

I think this is a fine example of what us scientific minded folk deal with.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/magic-amulets-do-not-prevent-covid/

[+Liquid Gardens]

32 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The whole, " your claim prove it" is my usual way of going about debating, discussing or whatever. 

It simply does not work. 

Understood and agreed, but in other ways it does 'work'.  Actually, on a huge number of normal topics 'your claim prove it' works just fine if the claimant can then provide a bunch of evidence that you were unaware of which convinces you.  From a scientific point of view, separate from an effort to convince someone to change their mind, if there is no evidence to back up a claim and nothing to examine then science is done with it at that point until something changes; in those kind of ways, I count that as 'working' just as intended, depending again on the intent.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Liquid Gardens

[+Desertrat56]

36 minutes ago, danydandan said:

You haven't answered my question, how would you approach asking someone for proof, evidence or whatever regarding a claim without causing an argument? 

My goal? Is to not use that sentence, as it almost always undermines my reason for asking the question. Curiosity. Answering this curiosity is my goal I suppose.

I'm agnostic by nature, never really make my mind up without in-depth analysis, thus asking for evidence etcetera is usually required. 

The whole point of this thread to avoid this blunt tact I usually use. 

How I would approach it is to ask a question based on what the person says.  My goal is to understand.  If I think the claim is unbelievable I explain why I think it is unbelievable.  When you are talking about paranormal, ufos, etc.  you already know there is no proof, it is usually an intangible experience.  If you are in a group of people who had the same experience then you have that but even that is not provable and you cannot go to the "Science" of it as you don't know enough about science to go there if you can't understand the experience to begin with.

[+Liquid Gardens]

33 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

If you tell of an experience you have and someone has no input except to tell you to prove it, how can you not interpret that as the person saying they don't believe you.

Again there is a huge difference between 'I don't believe you' and 'i think you're lying'.  I think normal adults at least should be able to handle people not believing them and not take offense at it. "It's your claim so prove it, because I've never heard of this claim before" is a lot different than "It's your claim so prove it, because I think you're lying".

37 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

No discussion, just prove it.  I have seen that a lot on this forum and it is a weak response, knee jerk or troll either way, not conducive to discussion and without any confusion as to why, the response to that is a negative response.  Do you understand what I am saying?

I do, I just think you may have a different specific scenario in mind than I do.  Dan's statement doesn't preclude discussion, it can be seen as an introduction to it.  If someone says the earth is 6000 years old, I don't see in that scenario that the obligation is on the listener to get the discussion going.  If I was presented with that, I couldn't get the discussion going because I don't know what they are talking about and basing it on, and some people may be (and have been) sensitive to my trying to reply to something like that by assuming what it is specifically based on, since then they object to how rude it is to 'put words in their mouth'.  Just one way to see it admittedly though, on the other end I guess it could be seen more along the lines of, 'when you get your claim published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, let me know', which I agree just shuts down the discussion.

38 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

In that specific example you could start by saying "I know some people are taught that however..."  But really that kind of thing is not debatable as anyone who states that and believes it is not going to defer to anyone else's "opinion" or knowledge.  

Agreed to your last statement.  Your suggested 'start' is nice and may smooth the conversation and acceptance of the ideas, but personally I have an aversion to statements that get too close to 'cloying' which can be seen as speaking to someone like they are a child.  Just a personal preference, but regardless to me your start doesn't quite fit the OP strategy as it doesn't include an admission that the claimant is 'right' about anything they said, which as you noted may be more because of this specific example and the normal attributes of people who claim that.

[+Desertrat56]

8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Again there is a huge difference between 'I don't believe you' and 'i think you're lying'.  I think normal adults at least should be able to handle people not believing them and not take offense at it. "It's your claim so prove it, because I've never heard of this claim before" is a lot different than "It's your claim so prove it, because I think you're lying".

I do, I just think you may have a different specific scenario in mind than I do.  Dan's statement doesn't preclude discussion, it can be seen as an introduction to it.  If someone says the earth is 6000 years old, I don't see in that scenario that the obligation is on the listener to get the discussion going.  If I was presented with that, I couldn't get the discussion going because I don't know what they are talking about and basing it on, and some people may be (and have been) sensitive to my trying to reply to something like that by assuming what it is specifically based on, since then they object to how rude it is to 'put words in their mouth'.  Just one way to see it admittedly though, on the other end I guess it could be seen more along the lines of, 'when you get your claim published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, let me know', which I agree just shuts down the discussion.

Agreed to your last statement.  Your suggested 'start' is nice and may smooth the conversation and acceptance of the ideas, but personally I have an aversion to statements that get too close to 'cloying' which can be seen as speaking to someone like they are a child.  Just a personal preference, but regardless to me your start doesn't quite fit the OP strategy as it doesn't include an admission that the claimant is 'right' about anything they said, which as you noted may be more because of this specific example and the normal attributes of people who claim that.

There has to be balance.  DandyDan's way is extreme and what you feel as "cloying" is an extreme (perception or otherwise).  The whole thing is do you want to discuss or argue or be the one who is always right?  Those are the choices I see and I see all 3 played out on this forum.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

There has to be balance.  DandyDan's way is extreme and what you feel as "cloying" is an extreme (perception or otherwise).

I didn't take Dan's statement quite as extreme as you did, especially in this medium, but your view of it is definitely reasonable.  Excepting a few people I try to follow a general rule:  if a statement is ambiguous as far as whether it is negative or not, I first try to hear it in my mind in the voice of a dumb or nice cartoon character, like Goofy or Tigger or Thumper, and see if it still sounds negative or rude or whatever before responding as if it is.  Better yet if you're familiar with him the actor Jimmy Stewart is a good one; for me 'your claim, prove it' fails the Jimmy Stewart test for clearly being snotty when said in his voice.

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

The whole thing is do you want to discuss or argue or be the one who is always right?  Those are the choices I see and I see all 3 played out on this forum.

They kinda overlap too with the 4th in this thread: do you want to convince people that something is true.  I'd say your first choice is necessary, the last choice will probably never work, and the second depending on whether it's anger-based or debate-based, can be a minus or a plus.  Overall I don't really concern myself with trying to guess what people 'want' here, I'm more interested in the content of what's typed about the topic, not the psychology of the typists (excluding a few select people on some topics where their psychology is their argument).

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Keep in mind though that one of your arguments against 'populist beliefs' relates to how many people have these kind of experiences and the haughtiness/arrogance of skeptics to just disregard billions of people's experiences, which pretty much also makes them 'populist'.

In all fairness to you on the 'spiritual/paranormal' type stuff there just isn't that much to work with so I guess 'A for effort'.  I do think not restricting yourself to only the opposing view would help your conversations make more progress.  In a competitive debate setting it's probably more appropriate and strategic to stick only to the opposing view but in a conversational debate setting where space and direct contact is limited I think you'd make more progress if you looked for opportunities to say things like, 'okay, my definitions of these words are different but let's use your definitions and see where that takes us' or 'let's say I'm incorrect about point A, then that just raises issue B'.  It's just your personal style, but it seems that any and all statements you find incorrect, no matter their relevance, require thorough adjudication which leads to a network of rabbit holes leading miles away from the initial debate topic which never gets returned to.

 

To the OP I think it's a sound strategy and can't see how it would hurt.  I could see how someone who is familiar with normal skeptic/critical thinking type subjects would see this tactic pretty plainly and some could see it as a little condescending if they were being uncharitable, but I don't see any way this tactic would make someone more resistant to someone's ideas so can only help. For those whose goal it is to try and convince people to change their minds of course, which isn't everyone's objective.

 

Two separate issues here 

Populist BELIEF is one thing

Populist experience is another.

eg  just because 90% of humans believe in some form of higher power has no bearing on whether that belief is true 

BUT if 25% of humans claim a physical expernce with such a being that has to be considered  and taken into account 

You, personally, may simply dismiss all such claims but that's not good practice  

Where a significant number of human beings share a common experience there there will be some reason for, or validity in, that experience  even if the rest of humanity have not experienced it Commonality or not of an experience is not (in itself)   a good enough reason to accept or dismiss it 

Eg how many humans have truly been chased by a great white shark while skiing ?

An easy claim to dismiss as fantastic, and based on the jaws movies,

Perhaps when you know it happens quite close to where jaws was filmed and where great whites are quite common, reaching sizes of over 20 feet,  it becomes a little more believable

 Even so ,it is tempting to dismiss such an event as impossible, until it happens to you.  

Ps you are correct about me 

Eldest child? 

Life time teacher ?

Raised to question and look at alternatives ?

Enjoy an argument ?

Like to win ? 

Pedantic? 

All are likely contributors to my style of posting 

Mainly,  however, you cant have a debate without opposing views or opinions. So i often choose or construct a "side"  for peole to disagree with  (it has to be arguable/possible  and have some evidentiary support ) 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Two separate issues here 

No just one, it's just providing qualification that your challenging of 'populist' beliefs is based on you arguing for your own also-populist beliefs.

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Eg how many humans have truly been chased by a great white shark while skiing ?

An easy claim to dismiss as fantastic and based on the jaws movies, Perhaps when you know it happens quite close to where jaws was filmed and where great whites are quite common, reaching sizes of over 20 feet,  it becomes a little more believable

Its tempting to dismiss such an event as impossible, until it happens to you.  

I can't even see with binoculars the left field this came out of.  Sharks chase skiers because they sometimes chase fish and seals and such - things that move equals food. 

This stuff doesn't have anything to do with the OP so belongs on the Afterlife thread I believe.

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No just one, it's just providing qualification that your challenging of 'populist' beliefs is based on you arguing for your own also-populist beliefs.

I can't even see with binoculars the left field this came out of.  Sharks chase skiers because they sometimes chase fish and seals and such - things that move equals food. 

This stuff doesn't have anything to do with the OP so belongs on the Afterlife thread I believe.

Sorry that you  cant see the difference between populist beliefs  and populist experiences,  and how one proves nothing, but the other may.

To put it simply.

 I t doesn't count towards the reality of ghosts how many people believe in them But it DOES count towards  the reality of ghosts, how many people actually encounter one 

rough figures 

around 50 -60% of people say the y believe in ghosts 

around 20 -60 % claim to have had contact with a t least one ghost  (The range here is across a number of surveys. The highest one was asked around halloween time and this may have affected peoples' responses ) 

quote

 a new Halloween study by Groupon found that most people have a stronger connection to the paranormal than one might think.

The global marketplace surveyed 2,000 people about their favorite spooky fall holiday and found that more than 60 percent of people admit to having seen a ghost in their lifetime.

In addition, more than 40 percent of those surveyed think their pet has seen one too. The research, conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Groupon also found one in three people have either lived or stayed in a house they felt was haunted.

https://nypost.com/2018/10/10/a-scary-number-of-people-claim-to-have-seen-ghosts/

The first can be dismissed.The second needs to be investigated 

My encounter with a great white shark is an illustration of how, sometimes, things you  believe cant be true and must be made up from  popular media etc.  actually happen to people. 

Edited November 13, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I t doesn't count towards the reality of ghosts how many people believe in them But it DOES count towards  the reality of ghosts, how many people actually encounter one 

Assumes the consequent. If one person has ever actually encountered a ghost, then there is such a thing as a ghost. That's a tautology.

Even after allowing for considerable BSing, plenty of people come to UM with their own experiences or the published experiences of others. By and large, the skeptical response concerns differences with the poster regarding the proper interpretation of the experience. OK, there's a cold spot in the basement; is it actually Aunt Myrtle?

I can remember when discussions with you were based on general acceptance of the underlying events and only your far-fetched interpretations of them were disputed. Those were the days, eh? Maybe that was a version of what Pascal was talking about: many of us generally did accept as much as we could of what you wrote. It didn't do much good with the rest, though, did it?

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My encounter with a great white shark is an illustration of how, sometimes, things you  believe cant be true and must be made up from  popular media etc.  actually happen to people. 

Actually it's an illustration of how you can find yourself in every topic. Aside from that, I'm not following why you say I can't believe it's true.

 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Assumes the consequent. If one person has ever actually encountered a ghost, then there is such a thing as a ghost. That's a tautology.

Even after allowing for considerable BSing, plenty of people come to UM with their own experiences or the published experiences of others. By and large, the skeptical response concerns differences with the poster regarding the proper interpretation of the experience. OK, there's a cold spot in the basement; is it actually Aunt Myrtle?

I can remember when discussions with you were based on general acceptance of the underlying events and only your far-fetched interpretations of them were disputed. Those were the days, eh? Maybe that was a version of what Pascal was talking about: many of us generally did accept as much as we could of what you wrote. It didn't do much good with the rest, though, did it?

Actually it's an illustration of how you can find yourself in every topic. Aside from that, I'm not following why you say I can't believe it's true.

 

indeed it maybe a tautology but its more basic than that.

Many people have encountered ghosts.

Thus  the y exist the difficult part is working out what  they are.

You actually reinforced my point.

UNLESS a person  believes that every encounter with a ghost is not based on a physical encounter then  the number of people who claim to have encountered ghosts has meaning /relevance.

So you believe i was chased on water skis for several kilometres by a great white shark ?

That is good judgement 

However it is some thing most people find hard to believe, in part because it appeared in Jaws  and in part, because it simply doesn't sound like anything which would occur in real life.

The y have less trouble believing i own a dog 

it is not a populist argument  

It doesn't matter how many, or how powerfully,  people believe in anything.That belief is   irrelevant to the things actual existence

However ,  even one actual encounter, let alone millions,  means the thing exists in some form  

 

is an illustration of how, sometimes, things you  believe cant be true and must be made up from  popular media etc.  actually happen to people. 

 was a generalist /generic comment. It wasn't applied to you particularly, but   its probably true for  you about  some things  Eg you dont believe i have encountered "angels,"  and yet its true  

As i have said many times before, I  usually  comment on things i know from  experience That means i do appear in many of my posts referencing my own experiences and conclusions. 

Eg Ive encountered both "ghosts"  and "gods" So i know they exist. i know what a humamind is capable of, such as speed reading and eidetic retention, or the abilty to plan and construct lucid dreams every night and to use them to explore the earth  and even the galaxy (whether it is  in my imagination, or  reality, the abilty is real and learnable  )  

  As an argument, that knowledge is the most powerful one i can present.  it makes what anyone believes irrelevant, although I try to avoid pointing that out too bluntly. 

[eight bits]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Many people have encountered ghosts.

Thus  the y exist the difficult part is working out what  they are.

Oh, so ghost is like god and angel in Walkerian - whatever anybody says is a ghost, god or angel, then that's what a ghost, god or angel is.

In other words, a tautology, and a waste of time to "discuss," no real discussion being possible.

Thanks for clarifying.

Although you do seem to accept that there's more to being a great white shark than somebody saying so. Do you ever wonder why that is, that great white sharks seem to exist independently of what people say about them, but gods and angels, and now ghosts, don't?

Evidently not. Too bad. There'd be a real discussion in that.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

because it simply doesn't sound like anything which would occur in real life.

It sounds plausible enough for the real life of people who are stu ... um, challenged ... enough to water ski in shark-infested waters.

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

Oh, so ghost is like god and angel in Walkerian - whatever anybody says is a ghost, god or angel, then that's what a ghost, god or angel is.

In other words, a tautology, and a waste of time to "discuss," no real discussion being possible.

Thanks for clarifying.

Although you do seem to accept that there's more to being a great white shark than somebody saying so. Do you ever wonder why that is, that great white sharks seem to exist independently of what people say about them, but gods and angels, and now ghosts, don't?

Evidently not. Too bad. There'd be a real discussion in that.

It sounds plausible enough for the real life of people who are stu ... um, challenged ... enough to water ski in shark-infested waters.

No; that is not what I said, and you  are intelligent enough to know that it is not  

 I said tha t many people have encountered ghosts and gods/angels  (unless you  choose to disbelieve every one of them) 

That doesn't mean they are the same thing.  I could have said that many people have encountered cats and dogs  They are not the same thing, ether   I Don't know what ghosts are and I have incomplete knowledge about the nature of gods/angels  but i know they are real 

Nomenclature is important.

  Cats, dogs, ghosts, and gods, are all labels which humans attach to define entities   In every case people all perceive, react to and understand them in individual ways 

There are many forms of dogs and cats. I suspect there are also many types or forms of ghosts and gods/angels  BUT, just as,when an entity demonstrates the qualities of a cat, it is labelled a cat, so,when an entity demonstrates the qualities of a ghost or god we label it such 

Cats dogs ghosts and gods only exist as those  entities because we choose to categorise, and then  to label, them as such (in English) 

I often wish that  the skeptics here could have an experience so incontrovertibly real that they could not deny it.But then they would no longer be skeptics  

The y are ALL  real physical beings, with independent existence, but they all have different qualities 

Until you accept, or at least are prepared  to discuss gods and ghosts within  these terms  of of reference, you simply won't get it, nor me 

I am neither stupid nor challenged   Back then, no one knew that Louth Bay was the home territory of a 20 foot great white 

I also encountered an 8 foot bronze whaler there a few years later, while spear fishing.  I hopped up on a rock until it seemed to have gone, then swam to  shore 

Back in the late sixties early  seventies, when surfing a t Sleaford and Fishery bays, we would often surf over schools of 6 foot bronze whalers and think nothing of it 

After my friend died, i was swimming back along a fish net after disentangling it's anchor from a reef, when a large   object tore right through it  Tha t decided me against further water sports.

By then I was in my forties and more cautious than as a teenager 

Today Port Lincoln is known as the home of the great white shark and you  can go cage diving to observe them, but that doesn't seem to worry the tens of thousands of locals and tourists who enjoy all forms of water sports in the summer months  

Back then i was only really worried when we capsized a yacht while racing and had to right it, while dangling off the side thrashing our legs in the water   

Edited November 13, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

24 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I said tha t many people have encountered ghosts and gods/angels  (unless you  choose to disbelieve every one of them) 

Many people report experiences that they interpret as meetings with ghosts, gods and angels. What I believe about those reports and about those interpretations, as with any belief, are not a matter of choice.

If belief is a choice for you, then great. Now all you need is someone else who speaks Walkerian, and the two of you can have a conversation.

Most of us here are already checked out on dogs and cats. Have I mentioned lately that I have no doubt that you could reliably (with only occasional errors) recognize dogs and cats, but considerable doubt about your performance ever recognizing ghosts, gods and angels? Why do you keep flogging this hopelessly flawed analogy, when nobody here ever falls for it?

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I am neither stupid nor challenged   Back then, no one knew that Louth Bay was the home territory of a 20 foot great white 

OK. I stand corrected.

 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Many people report experiences that they interpret as meetings with ghosts, gods and angels. What I believe about those reports and about those interpretations, as with any belief, are not a matter of choice.

If belief is a choice for you, then great. Now all you need is someone else who speaks Walkerian, and the two of you can have a conversation.

Most of us here are already checked out on dogs and cats. Have I mentioned lately that I have no doubt that you could reliably (with only occasional errors) recognize dogs and cats, but considerable doubt about your performance ever recognizing ghosts, gods and angels? Why do you keep flogging this hopelessly flawed analogy, when nobody here ever falls for it?

OK. I stand corrected.

 

Ok so you disbelieve them all.

Ie the y ALL  misinterpret their perception of reality (if the y are not simply hallucinating lying etc.

Thats a brave call to make   and completely unevidenced (ie some sightings may not be of real entities but you  cant apply tha t arbitrarily to all of them) 

And human choices are ALWAYS a matter  of choice. We have cognitive choices in every decision we make and no physically compelling force  is  compelling us to a certain decision   Sometimes these can be subconscious  but they  remain choices we can control .

Emotional/ psychological forces can push us towards certain chces and away from  others,  but again can't compel us.

Self discipline and the abilty to see and  construct alternative choices, to create alternative outcomes,  means  we  always have multiple choices available to us. 

Your doubts are your problem 

I might have difficulty recognising some forms of fish, insects, and even a few animals, due to lack of familiarity with them.

    I dont have any difficulty with ghosts, dragons,  fairies,elves, dwarves  or gods/angels  

Are you truly serious that you believe  that you cannot shape and form every choice your mind makes ? Who do you think is in charge of your mind, if not you 

For me its NOT a false analogy It may appear false to you owing to your lack of familiarity with  many entities either in reality or in literature 

Plus of course you dont believe some things are real and physical and so you dont believe they can be identified and catalogued, and taxonomies of them ascertained  

Even non existent entities can be classified and a taxonomy constructed from  the literature on them 

https://screencrush.com/scienfitic-summary-movie-dragons/#:~:text=Dragons belong the the kingdom,that our work truly begins.

quote

Dragons belong the the kingdom Animalia and below that, the phylum Chordata. However, whatever connections they share to other creatures ends right there. Class Draconia is as deep and varied as any other biological class and it is here that our work truly begins. From here, you can divide Draconia into two specific orders (the Draconia Mysticaliformes and the Draconia Mundaniformes) before venturing further into the various families.

Read More: A Complete and Scientific Classification of Cinematic Dragons | https://screencrush.com/scienfitic-summary-movie-dragons/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

https://www.pinterest.com.mx/pin/731272058237036594/

 

https://www.deviantart.com/dehydromon/art/Taxonomy-of-Dragons-etc-195685347

   

as for gods

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities_by_classification

 

http://wychwoodacastlebetweentheworlds.com/tax.htm

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Dejarma]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:32 PM, openozy said:

I have had hundreds of paranormal experiences some confirmed by witnesses.

prove it

[jmccr8]

17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Dragons belong the the FICTIONAL kingdom Animalia and below that, the phylum Chordata

Hi Walker

jmccr8

[Dejarma]

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Thats a brave call to make

no bravery there, it's called logic... what's braver (& IMO pointless & stupid) is trying to prove claims without evidence= to me, that's funny

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

jmccr8

Did you read my post ?The point was tha t EVEN fictional entities can have taxonomies and classifications and thus be recognized  

Ghosts and gods aren't necessarily fictional, but even if they were, 8 bits is wrong. A trained observer could not only discern that something was  a ghost or a god, but tell you what type the y were. 

[Mr Walker]

5 hours ago, Dejarma said:

no bravery there, it's called logic... what's braver (& IMO pointless & stupid) is trying to prove claims without evidence= to me, that's funny

N o; it is brave to the point of foolishness and also nonscientific to ASSUME that every contact is always of something unreal or misperceived.

  Such an assumption relies not on established facts about an individual case,  but on a strong belief tha t these things do not exist and thus cannot be contacted or experienced  It is allowing a belief to prejudice a judgement  

You cant prove anything without evidences but I am talking about the cases where strong physical evidences existed to/for those involved. 

[danydandan]

Any chance you lot can stay on-topic?

[onlookerofmayhem]

39 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Any chance you lot can stay on-topic?

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Ok so you disbelieve them all.

No, typically I believe some of what they say and disbelieve or disagree with other parts. Actually, that's more or less true of just about everybody's collected works, I concur in part and dissent in part. I suspect that just about everybody would say the same about me.

Oddly enough, that's also the topic title, that I might say to anybody else and anybody else say to me, You are right, but you are wrong.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Are you truly serious that you believe  that you cannot shape and form every choice your mind makes ?

After all these years, do i strike you as a frivolous poster? Do I impress you as somebody whose attention to the principles of normative belief, preference and choice is casual and ill-informed? Very well, then. No point trying to fix that now.

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Who do you think is in charge of your mind, if not you 

I've never met anybody from management; I just work here.

Cute dragons, gnarly tree. Nobody ever falls for that one, either.

On a point arising with another poster:

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

8 bits is wrong. A trained observer could not only discern that something was  a ghost or a god, but tell you what type the y were. 

You really don't see that what I doubt is that there is any such thing as "training" by which anybody could be a "trained observer," do you? Yes, yes, I know, in 1987, you were awarded Teacher of the Year at Hogwart's. Silly me.

Finally:

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And human choices are ALWAYS a matter  of choice.

Well at least we agree on somethng.