Why does my neutrality cause such a tizzy? Am I not allowed to have an opinion or to speculate, because I neither believe nor disbelieve? When I said that some believers see specks of dust as orbs, I wasn’t attacked by frenzied believers.
Alan Smithee, Princhester and anyone else who thinks I ignored their comments… I read every single comment and considered each one. Maybe I was wrong to speculate that evidence would not be out there for everyone to see. I was mostly thinking about people who wouldn’t want to be identified incase of ridicule. I was also forgetting that thanks to the internet those things can be done anonymously.
It’s not my nature to get everybody so irate. I was just trying to express a completly different oppinion. I should have listened to featherlou.
I don’t understand. Where has someone said they objected to your neutrality? Who has told you that you were not allowed to have an opinion or to speculate?
Your last two posts seem to be debating positions that no one has adopted. Why is that?
Sorry, Ensign, I don’t mean to ignore you, but I don’t have a dog in that fight. I don’t have any particularly strong feelings for or against the paranormal.
Batsinma, I think I’m going to take my own advice, too. This really doesn’t seem to be a topic of pleasant debate.
No one cares about your neutrality and you haven’t been attacked at all. You’ve been asked to explain your assertions about US, that’s all. You’ve accused us of ignoring evidence and being unwilling to discuss the subject,
Take notice of who is willing to discuss this topic and who is running away.
I just want to add that maintining a posture of “neutrality” on the existence of ghosts isn’t “open minded.” It just shows a lack of critical thinking ability. It’s no different than imagining yourself to be open minded because you neither believe nor disbelieve in smurfs.
Larry Borgia, it’s HyDRANcenphely, not hydrocephely.
I know about Toyko Player’s loss, but just thought I’d mention that case.
I dunno…I just know of so many bizare unexplained by science nereological cases… and we’re not talking cases where the brain could have rewired itself, or slightly bizare “Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat” style cases!
Oh and I totally agree with some of the members. Sometimes I think that the people here are the types who read Skeptic magazine, aka hardcore atheists, with absolutly positively NO belief in something that can’t be 100% proved and backed up by science! There are more things in Heaven and and Earth then ever you dreamed of Horatio!
See post #67. And if you must quote Hamlet, at least have the courtesy to get it right: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/ Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
My appologies, Ensing Edison, I chose your post to quote because is was worded in way that sounded like you actually did want to have a discussion. I’m having a hard time wording this – what I’m trying to say is that when these threads take on such an angry tone some people aren’t going to want to post. I’m a skeptic too, but I still like to hear what other people have to say. It sounds like you do as well.
You do nested quotes by placing quote tags within quote tags. For instance, change the parentheses to brackets and this:
(quote=Diogenes the Cynic)(QUOTE=indecisive1)My post above refers to this. Is there an easy way to get a nested quote to work?(/QUOTE)
You do nested quotes by placing quote tags within quote tags.(/quote)
I definitely believe in ghost stories. Ghost Hunters visits Ireland’s Leap Castle this week. Yes, I’ll watch every hokey minute…
Leap Castle is mentioned here, but the entry is old & the link to the castle is dead. Actually, I just wanted an excuse to point to Blather.net, with its Fortean outlook on All Things Occult. Skeptics with a sense of humor!
Here’s more information on Leap Castle, with a “haunting” picture. (The ruin/house has new owners–but the ending here is more dramatic–to match the picture.)
Oliver St John Gogarty introduced me to “The Most Haunted House in Ireland”–the title of his essay caught on, although the essay is hard to find. Gogarty wrote an exceptionally “haunting” version of the story–although it departs from earlier versions. And he included some affectionately satirical conversations with that old occultist, Yeats. (Yeats mentioned the main Leap Castle apparition in A Vision–again, his own version of the monstrous thing.)
Well, the thing is I think people get defensive or perceive hostility where none is intended. Asking someone to define what they mean by “ghost,” for instance, is not meant to be snarky or dismissive, it’s a necessary component of a serious discussion. There is no way to examine a hypothesis until it’s explained in empirically coherent terms. Some people see that as unfair, but it really isn’t. The same criteria is used for any other hypothetical explanation for any other observed phenomenon.
For a serious discussion of their existence - yes. We all understand the popular conceptions of the word but those conceptions are not scientifically useful.
Your link does not privide any scientifically meaningful definitions. Only more undefined words like “spirit.”
Yanno, Dio, sympathetic as I am, I’ve always thought the insistence upon a scientific definition of “ghost” is a bit wrong-headed. We don’t have a clear definition of extraterrestrial life, but that doesn’t stop people, scientists and amateurs alike, from discussing it intelligently, looking for evidence of it, and debunking false claims of it.
I admit that believers in ghosts can be a bit slippery about precisely what it is they’re claiming (must be all that ectoplasm making them slippery), but I think asking for a definition is the wrong way of pinning them down. Just ask evidence–hard, conformable evidence. Of anything! As with psi, there’s no point debating if the phenomenon is physical or non-physical (or what the heck those words mean) until they demonstrate that a phenomenon even exists.