He finally gets it. That was exactly my point from the very beginning. “Do not be fooled by doubletalk chicksdigscars. That webpage only mentions OUP once: “E. N. Aron (2000). “High Sensitivity as One Source of Fearfulness and Shyness,” in Extreme Fear, Shyness, and Social Phobia: Origins, Biological Mechanisms, and Clinical Outcomes. Eds. L. A. Schmidt and J. Schulkin. New York: Oxford University Press,pp. 251-272.” Unless you have read the article you have no idea what type of sensitivity that refers to or whether it is related to what is on that webpage at all.”
So after arguing around it seems that you now agree with me, despite you initially claiming that I contradicted myself in that post. We can let it rest at that.
Well come back when you do. We’ll all be here. Until then it’s just so much hot air.
witnessed what? Ghosts? Energy beings? Or are they the same? Hordes of people have written about bugs on their skin, bigfoot, alien abductions, heck even Nessie has gotten alot of press. Are all these equally true?
Since we haven’t seen any evidence yet there wouldn’t seem to be much point. I repeat: This is GD, not IMHO. Present your evidence for that extraordinary claim
I have always maintained that there are different kinds of sensitivity. Just because you Blake don’t fit Aron’s criteria doesn’t mean her theory is baseless.
And for the love of God stop referring to me as HE.
Is that your evidence handsomharold, a Google search?
OK, eyewitness accounts ghosts returned 4,690 hits.
Eyewitness accounts dragon returned 3,520 hits
Do you accept that as evidence of dragons?
That’s nice, so have I. However now we are in agreement that there is no contradiction between believing in sensitivity and believing in HSP syndrome. That is something tha you could not understand before and do understand now.
Now all we need to do is wait for your evidence that ghosts exists and that some people can’t see them.
Of course no never said that was the case. In fact, as I pointed out above I do fit Aron’s criteria. The misrepresentations and strawmen are flying thick and fast.
I am using it in the non-gender specific manner. It’s perfectly acceptable.
so with all these eyewitness accounts it should be easy to point to some definitive evidence. Something beyond a totally subjective “I woke up at 3am and saw something! And it felt cold in the room” Something more then blurry easily faked photographs.
And Diogenes the Cynic already stole my next question. If they are energy what’s their properties? How can this energy be measured?
Answering (badly) one of the many challenges you are posed as you make your ridiculous assertions, you instruct us to “read Jung”, chicksdigscars. Precisely what sort of reasoning or evidence are you referring to in his works? Jung, like Freud before him, built a lot of his framework on entirely arbitrary concepts that have almost no value in scientific reasoning and no applicability in the real world. Further, this kind of psycho-quackery is pseudoscientific because (in addition to being based on arbitrary foundations and therefore meaningless) it is not possible to verify it.
I suspect you don’t understand what you are debating here, you have no idea how to go about debating it, and you don’t realize that it’s not advisable to argue utterly unprepared and ignorant of the basic facts (as you have demonstrated to be) against some of the posters here. Your strategy will work in many other places on the Net, but we tend to be a little more informed than that around here.
You could always educate yourself by doing a search in Great Debates on the supernatural or the paranormal – we have reams and reams of materials here, some of them highly detailed, though somehow I suspect you will prefer to continue throwing up your silly and elementary arguments rather than learn some FACTS that challenge your precious beliefs. Hopefully I’m wrong.
On the other hand I have just seen handsomeharold’s earth-shaking post about “thousands of eyewitnesses”, and here we have yet again another generic simple-minded assertion of high credulity. Aren’t you folks embarrassed to come out with these idiotic statements? Have you had zero training in critical thinking and reasoning?
There are over 150 years of formal scientific investigation into the paranormal (from ghosts, to telepathy, to water-dowsing, etc.). That includes several thousands of studies and tests conducted both by believers of the paranormal and non-believers, to say nothing of those who are ambivalent about the matter. In all that time, in the millions of words on the subject, NOT ONE ITEM of reliable evidence has surfaced to support any hypothesis that treats the paranormal as anything other than a human belief (delusion) or error in perception. Nothing. And now those of us who keep track of these things out of personal interest are supposed to drop the studies and the journals to rally around the simplistic cries of “Google hits” or “eyewitnesses”???
That’s rather non-responsive. I didn’t deny that you had “seen” something, I was merely making a further query about one of your own assertions. You said you saw “energy beings.” I’m just asking what kind of energy they were made of and how you knew it was energy.
“Energy” has a specific meaning. It is not just a catch-all term for anything which seems non-material. When you say they’re made of energy, you’re saying they have physical properties. If they don’t have physical properties they can’t be made of energy. You have attributed a physical, empirically testable quality to these beings just as surely as if you said they were made of cheese.
Holy Crap! and noone ever told me. when I was younger I could see flourescent lights flickering, as in 60 times per second the lights cycle and I could see them. god I hated flourescent lights, massive headaches. I get the smell reactions to although it takes a pretty strong perfume to induce nausea.
what does this have to do with this thread?
I definitly fall into the above Hypersentsitivity disorder catagory. Once I talked to a Raven while working in a popular shopping mall. the raven didnt really talk, I just sort of knew his half of the converstation. I’m not sure how long this conversation lasted but it stopped when coworker asked me who I was talking to…of course the fact that I was on my 10th hour at work with less than 4 hours of sleep over the previous 3 days Might have played a roll in me and the ravens little chat but who am I do say?
When I was trying to make my point for G-d’s existence, I was buried under fallacies on DAY ONE. I count at least eight here and only saw one? mentioned. NO FAIR!!!FOUL!!!**BIAS I want to be HSP too if that’s what it takes to get away with this cp. Is getting pitted on your second day a record? Hmmm… :mad:
IWLN there is a good reason for that apparent bias. You made it clear that you were bright enough to understand what a logical fallacy is and why they can’t be used. Chicksdigscars doesn’t understand that proving the existence of HSP syndrome doesn’t prove that peole with HSP can see ghosts. We might be moving a bit to fast if we expect her to understand what alogical fallacy is.
And anyway I have identified at least two fallacies: an argument from ignorance and a non-sequitur. There are at least 10 others in Chicksdigscars’ posts so far : argument from authority, argument ad numerum, argumentum ad populum, argument from assertion/circular argument, equivocation, strawman, amphiboly, anecdotal evidence, Non causa pro causa and red herring.
But if she can’t understand why debates need either facts or reason she is unlikely to understand why logical fallacies can’t be employed.
Heres why I don’t believe ghosts are real. (or at least the most logical reason)
Lets just say hypotheticaly that their are 100 genuine ghosts out there. Lets also assume that ghosts keep at least a modicum of their personality before they were ghosts.
Now, we all know that humans in general love to be in the spotlight. Who here on this board hasn’t at least once or twice dreamed of what it would be like to be famous?
Now, don’t you think at least one of these ghosts would give the world absolute, undiniable proof that ghosts are real knowing that it would make him or her famous beyond belief? Also to alieviate the complete boredom these suposed ghost must feel just roaming around all the time.
Also I’d like to add that we as humans are VERY arrogant. We seem to always have a tendacy to attribute things to the supernatural if we can’t explain them ourselves. (hence, the birth of religion. my thoughts ) Far be it from us to actually say “You know I just can’t fucking explain it” Which BTW doesn’t necessarily mean its of the supernatural.
I mean come on guys, remember the face on Mars? How many nut jobs out there were ready to say “Oh look! aliens used to live on Mars!” Turns out it was just a mountain upon closer inspection…
Maybe it would be helpful, chicksdigscars, if you understood the following:
Great Debates is not an appropriate place for attacking other people.
DtC did not accuse you of being schizophrenic. He asked if you were. Being schizophrenic is not a stigma, but it is one common source of hallucinations. (There are bright and insightful schizophrenics on SDMB who had much rather be schizophrenic than dense.)
The word proof is largely a mathematical term, so why not just use the word evidence here.
There are basically three kinds of evidence used here.
Anecdotal evidence is what you have described. It relies on personal experience – or even the personal experiences of thousands of people. It is worth sharing but is not considered strong evidence in a debate, so don’t feel personally insulted when other debaters require more.
Empirical evidence comes from controlled scientific research following the traditional scientific method we learned about in high school or elementary school.
The third kind of evidence is that which is provided in non-scientific discussions. It is often statistical data. Its believability depends upon the reliability of the source. If you wanted to quote the number of troops in Iraq, for example, you might quote from the Department of Defense website.
Your language skills tell me that you are too bright not to be able to understand what is being said to you. You are not being harrassed; several people here are trying to convince you to learn what is expected in General Debates before you become so defensive and aggressive.
You have made some assumptions about General Debates and the people who participate here that are incorrect.
