YOU again??!? :eek:
Kindly read my words carefully (particularly the passage, “The cynic in me wonders IF…”) before spouting such ridiculously inane drivel. Your reply makes no sense at all.
Having seen this angle before, where a person floats an idea to see if someone bites, and either goes with the flow if others take the bait, or backs off when no one does. The old “I’m just throwing the idea out-I don’t actually believe it!” gambit.
Sad that you feel that way…
Where to you hear these debates? There’s not a lot of people defending parapsychology (or conspiracy theories) on the SDMB.
Here, for one place. It’s a way for the poster to toss out something and weasel out of replying as if he–hah hah!–actually BELIEVED that shit! It’s a cheap and transparent device.
shrug I will defend some conspiracy theories but am open to contrary data. Which seems to be the difference between a “nut” and someone seeking the truth.
See posts #3, 7, and 12 in this thread. Look familiar?
So I made a silly, offhand remark, and you interpreted it as a sneaky ploy to “prove” the gov’t controls psychic powers? That’s extremely knee-jerkish. Is it really so hard to accept that I was only joking? Maybe you should take a break from those debates, they are starting to affect your logic.
Every time I look in the mirror, pal.
Who else?
You are the one that claimed you’ve experienced paranormal events. If your mind wasn’t already made up, you would have said “possible paranormal events” or “unexplained events”. We have no way of investigating said events, which puts us in the position of either taken said events at face value, or calling you on them. This way, you either have our support, or you can claim that you were attacked. Same thing with the offhand remark about lack of evidence possibly being evidence of a government cover up. If the conversation that follows your supposition leans toward conspiracy, you get to be the leader of the pack. If it goes against you, you are being “attacked”.
I love this quote from the article I linked to:
Yes, I have experienced paranormal events. Some events, which I used to assume were evidence of the supernatural, turned out to have very simple, mundane causes. (Occam’s Razor and all that.) Others I still cannot explain, except to assume, for the moment, that ghosts do exist.
Keep in mind that I am open to the idea that ghost sightings have a very real, very mundane explanation. Perhaps it’s something so simple, I keep overlooking it. But I am open to new interpretations. Therefore, I Am A Scientist. Quid Pro Quo.
However, you still haven’t answered my question. Who else, other than myself, have you debated paranormal events with? Please provide links if possible.
Naturally, I meant Q.E.D. :rolleyes:
You don’t know what you saw, so your default assumption is that ghosts exist? Do you know what my default assumption is when I don’t know what I saw?
“I don’t know, so I’m not going to assume jack until I get more information.”
Fair enough. That method works, too.
Correction. That method works, usually.
I think your statement here is very revealing. It indicates a bias towards the supernatural as opposed to the merely unknown. You say “I have experienced paranormal events” but have no proof but your interpretation. You even admit that some events you assumed (incorrectly) to be paranormal, were not. Do you see the problem here? In spite of your protestations to having an open mind, you are assuming the illogical, such as “ghosts do exist, therefore…”.
While I will leave open the extremely unlikely possibility that ghosts do exist simply because I cannot prove that they don’t, using such an explanation for some phenomena that you cannot explain is just plain stupid. It is not the sign of an open mind, but a very closed one, one that is based on nothing but fantasy. Your wish to believe doesn’t make it any more likely.
Themes mentioned in this thread include 1) scientific methods do not reveal the claimed phenomena, therefore it is science that needs to be revised, and 2) the lack of published evidence for the phenomena is indicative that the evidence really exists, but that They Don’t Want You To Know.
Both themes are common to quackery in general. Homeopathy comes to mind in reference to the theme “science is inacapable of measuring our unique form of woo”. And of course people like convicted con man Kevin Trudeau have made a mint out of They Don’t Want You To Know.
Proponents of paranormality are not doing their field any good by promoting these themes.
I’ve experienced a strange event. I was working in an old mansion, alone in an office, on the upper floor and it was a very hot summer day. Suddenly I got a very, very cold feeling go right down the back of my head and also my back and the hairs on my next seemed to tingle/maybe stand up. I thought ‘that’s odd’ and turned around to see if there was an air conditioner unit on. There wasn’t one in there but I suddenly realised I should not be there anymore, I was not wanted there. I must leave that building immediately. I felt threatened.
So I ran out the office, down the stairs and for the first exit, and down a summery pathway to another building where my brother was working. He took one look at me and said ‘You alright?’ After we had a coffee he told me about the woman who had fallen/was thrown from an upstairs internal bannister in the mansion, around 100 years previously, and had frightened many in there before me.
I’ve never had that feeling before or since (and don’t care to either!). I ‘sort of’ believed in ghosts before then (my sister has claimed to have seen at least a dozen in the last 35 years in various situations) but after that day I definitely believe in them. No scientific study could prove what happened that day and I didn’t see nuthin’ or hear nuthin’. I don’t care, for me they’re real. If there had been a number for Ghostbusters I might even have called them for a quote.
I mean, it seems like we oght to see this stuff happening all the time-take ghosts/hauntings: there are more people alive now than ever, yet all of the classic ghost stories are from the past. I don’t know why these things shouldn’t happen more frequently.
So, I uess parapsychology is a stillborn science-there isn’t enough evidence to investigate!
Let me ask you something, Mr. Ailurophile – why is a “wish to believe” such a bad thing? Do you really believe that the subjective human experience has no bearing on the objective universe? Emotions are real, btw…neuroscience has even pinpointed the exact area of the brain where emotions come from.
For example…if a loved one died in a tragic accident, and a few days later you “felt their presence”…what’s the problem with believing in it? Or would you assume that such a “presence” was merely an emotional need, and you would dismiss it entirely? Really, I’d like to know.
I have had a few paranormal experiences in my day, ranging from ghost sightings to clarivoyant dreams. Just because someone else hasn’t experienced them doesn’t mean they don’t exist, and just because someone is using the scientific method in an unorthodox manner or situation doesn’t make them a quack. I’ve never met someone who had a paranormal experience that was later explained by science who fought it. They have always (in my experience) been glad to accept the more rational, proven explanation.
If a parapsychologist uses the scientific method and other tools and such normal scientists would use and uses them properly, they are a scientist whether or not you like the field they study. Can anyone here tell us what kind of things someone who is studying to be a parapsychologist would learn? That might help convince you they are scientists. As for convincing you of other paranormal things I don’t think that is possible. You really have to experience it to understand.
When ‘real’ psychology prooves itself to be a science in my eyes, I still won’t take this sick psudo-science for anything but justification for even more retard-themed daytime reality TV shows.
Of course, it’s far and away better to examine unusual things from a scientific perspective, folllowing the scientific method of observation, experementation and knoledge improvemen. Origianally, bactiria and atoms were viewed in the same light ghosts and zombies are today; only through scientific proofs did they get the acceptance they now have. While I don’t think anyone will ever be able to proove such things oeither way with experements, and all the users have VERY lax standards for their evidence, it’s not unique among ‘scientists’ (see sociology and bio-psychology) to exagerate their findings.