# I'm bowing out of all future "paranormal" threads. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003 "2004-10-25T05:08:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/21 "2004-10-25T09:55:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Heh heh, guilty as charged, **Mange** , but I’m heartened to hear that you find it endearing! Perhaps I should change my username to **LoveableOffal**. 🙂 Not only endearing, but very often incisive, rigorous and lucid too; I don’t necessarily _agree_ with your every conclusion, but I cannot fault your method. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 9:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/22 "2004-10-25T09:56:19Z")
**Lib** , when I arrived here it was _you_ who became my dialectic driving instructor. If my turn of phrase can lead others to enjoy the scenery and avoid road rage incidents on their journey, the responsibility is ultimately yours. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/23 "2004-10-25T09:59:34Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > BTW,…whence the hate and anger? That is something I don’t get about certain regions of SDMB, and it really seems to have gotten worse of late. It might, just might, and I’m just spitballin’ here, have something to do with the fact that you’ve responded to fairly cogent arguments against your beliefs with comments like “Fuck You!” and “Asshole!” That you’re surprised by the reaction of others to such verbal diarrhea says a great deal. > [@Aeschines](#): > > I perceive myself here as a nice person who wants to debate sincerely and cleanly. There aren’t enough roll-eyes in the smiley library to deal with this. Your “participation” in these threads won’t be missed. Trust me on this one. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/24 "2004-10-25T09:59:46Z")
Such kind words from those I think so highly of. Whoever heard of an _embarrassed_ scouser?! ---
**Author:** ![moriah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b2d939/32.png) [@moriah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/moriah)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/25 "2004-10-25T10:29:49Z")
It’s OK to be a mad dog on the board. Though, it would have been better for you to distance yourself from the frothy barking of SnakeSpirit, who gives wackos a bad name. Disagreement based on faith is tolerated here if one is civil about it and at least able to recognize why someone holds an opposing view even if one disagrees with it. Peace. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/26 "2004-10-25T10:50:12Z")
Fer cryin’ out loud. SM, Lib and Mange, if you’re going to have a threeway, could you at least do it over in MPSIMS? They like that sort of thing over there (or so I’ve heard), but in here it’s just _wrong_. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/27 "2004-10-25T10:58:01Z")
Fuck you. That better? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/28 "2004-10-25T11:14:18Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Fuck you. > > That better? If you’re trying to turn it into a four-way, I think you’re going to have to do a better job of sweet-talkin’ **Princhester** than that. Unless he’s into rough trade. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/29 "2004-10-25T11:14:43Z")
Yep, I was having a panic attack caused by too many positive emotions on a full stomach. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/30 "2004-10-25T13:53:45Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > This is a wise move, friend **Aeschines**. I, too, decided to absent myself from those threads when I felt I’d said and cited everything that I believed would convince the reasonable observer of my position, which can be summarised thus: I guess I’ll go against the mainstream here and say I thought this post was way out of place. Not that I didn’t agree with it fully, mind you, but **Aeschines** is trying gracefully to bow out, and you’re kicking his ass while doing so. As an analogy, consider this exchange: A: I guess we’ll never see eye-to-eye on politics, will we? Let’s just agree to disagree, and let bygones be bygones. Let’s not discuss politics anymore, OK? Friends? B: That’s a great idea. Especially when you consider Bush’s poor record on the economy, civil rights issues, and the following points on the war listed hereafter: (etc.) That’s just bad form. That’s kicking a man while he’s down. Then again, I don’t really know **Aeschines** ’ record, so maybe I’m missing a step. Had it been **Lekatt** that started such a thread, I might not be so charitable. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/31 "2004-10-25T14:12:23Z")
> [@](#): > > **Aeschines** is trying gracefully to bow out, and you’re kicking his ass while doing so. This was not my intention, and I hope that **Aeschines** knows me well enough not to have taken it as such. My list was meant to serve as a bookmark for future discussion between us, since a lot of the progress that had been made in those threads was subsequently rather drowned out by some unsavoury noise. It was not by any means meant as an “ass kicking” - indeed, I’m pretty sure **Aeschines** already appreciated much of it already, despite what some here attribute to him (IMO unfairly). I was not congratulating him on the wisdom of avoiding _all_ such discussions in future, but in avoiding those emotionally charged current trainwrecks which, to their detriment, employ something of a ‘scattergun’ approach to all kinds of different phenomena. My intended advice was to wait for a focussed, level-headed debate on a very specific subject and acquaint himself with some of the well-established neuropsychological research from the last 30 years. It really has come a long way and we should all at least try and _accomodate_ its often surprising conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/32 "2004-10-25T14:21:38Z")
Thank you, **SentientMeat** and others, for your thoughts. In reality, the paranormal was never what I wanted to discuss on SDMB the most. I just felt a strange kind of obligation, especially in recent months, to tell the other side of the story when a guest asked a question or whatnot. As I said in the ghosts thread, I simply don’t have enough research experience in any of the areas to argue “my” side with any kind of convincing power. In that sense, my efforts were akin to taking a few antibiotic pills during an infection: more likely to do harm than good. To wit, a guest who is truly naive about psi, ghosts, and the afterlife, having seen me trounced in these arguments, is more likely to think the claims have even less merit than they actually do. At any rate, I thank you again for your comments. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/33 "2004-10-25T14:36:27Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > As I said in the ghosts thread, I simply don’t have enough research experience in any of the areas to argue “my” side with any kind of convincing power. In that sense, my efforts were akin to taking a few antibiotic pills during an infection: more likely to do harm than good. To wit, a guest who is truly naive about psi, ghosts, and the afterlife, having seen me trounced in these arguments, is more likely to think the claims have even less merit than they actually do. Possibly. It could also be the case that some guests recognize, as I do, that demands for scientific evidence for your metaphysical claims were stupid and Neanderthal in their conception. The dumbest people on earth are those who consider empiricism to be the only valid epistemology. Arguing with them is like arguing with brick-headed fundamentalists who believe that all truth is found in the Bible. Ask them to prove with science that 1+1=2 and their protests will be so shrill as to cause a ringing in the ear. They don’t even know what _they_ are talking about, much less what _you_ are talking about. So don’t sweat it. Meanwhile, study Sentient’s list carefully. It takes the right approach, interpreting the data as objectively as possible within his subjective reference frame. And understand that you, too, may hold to Ockham’s Razor while asserting that, in your experience, in your subjective reference frame, the paranormal has proved to be an entity that is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/34 "2004-10-25T15:00:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Possibly. It could also be the case that some guests recognize, as I do, that demands for scientific evidence for your metaphysical claims were stupid and Neanderthal in their conception. The dumbest people on earth are those who consider empiricism to be the only valid epistemology. I appreciate your philosophical approach. I was a philosophy major myself. The thing is, I have often tried to make philosophical points in the paranormal threads, as this is where I thought I could argue strongest. But I have been in abject failure in going _meta_ on the issues under discussion; there is always a reversion to calls for “cites.” But all I have to offer are the standard links on the Web–not good enough for the style of argument that prevails on this board. > [@](#): > > Arguing with them is like arguing with brick-headed fundamentalists who believe that all truth is found in the Bible. Ask them to prove with science that 1+1=2 and their protests will be so shrill as to cause a ringing in the ear. They don’t even know what _they_ are talking about, much less what _you_ are talking about. So don’t sweat it. Thanks. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, study Sentient’s list carefully. It takes the right approach, interpreting the data as objectively as possible within his subjective reference frame. And understand that you, too, may hold to Ockham’s Razor while asserting that, in your experience, in your subjective reference frame, the paranormal has proved to be an entity that is necessary. It is. My convictions are stronger than when I first started posting here, because I have gone back and done additional research on the topics. But I have said all I have to say on these issues. And I agree: Sentient is a great debater and a clear thinker. We just happen to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7bcc69/32.png) [@Mighty\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Girl)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/35 "2004-10-25T15:02:57Z")
> [@Talon Karrde](#): > > Well, it doesn’t mean much. I like just about everybody. 🙂 Somebody likes _me_! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/36 "2004-10-25T15:18:09Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I appreciate your philosophical approach. I was a philosophy major myself. The thing is, I have often tried to make philosophical points in the paranormal threads, as this is where I thought I could argue strongest. But I have been in abject failure in going _meta_ on the issues under discussion; there is always a reversion to calls for “cites.” But all I have to offer are the standard links on the Web–not good enough for the style of argument that prevails on this board. You mean not _bad_ enough. With notable exceptions, this is a place where people think you can’t prove a negative, that Peano’s fifth axiom is an empirical observation, and that logic is useful when it serves their purposes but suspicious when it contradicts their own conclusions. They think all possibilities are epistemic. They don’t know a synthetic judgment from an analytic one. And they don’t know that science is merely a branch of philosophy, just like logic, math, and religion. They aren’t demanding cites because they are interested in your sources; they are demanding cites because they are debating cowards. They cannot argue the points from their own academic skills, and so they employ a stall tactic — sending you off to dig up corroborative material while already poised to declare it unfit before you even produce it. If someone of Sentient’s calibre asks you for a cite, it is because you have made an epistemic claim. But then, that is your own error, given the context of your argument. Use the philosophy you have learned. Don’t give in to their rope-a-dope debating strategies. Call them on their logical fallacies, and admit when you fuck up. Those who matter will know the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/37 "2004-10-25T15:58:30Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Ask them to prove with science that 1+1=2 and their protests will be so shrill as to cause a ringing in the ear. Actually, provided that we agree on what “1”, “+”, “=” and “2” mean, this is incredibly easy. I’m sure you can construct a suitable experiment in the safety of your own home. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/38 "2004-10-25T16:05:52Z")
I’m afraid that no experiment will do. You need an analytic — not an empirical — epistemology. And you need five axioms in addition to the undefined terms you’ve stated. Here is [one approach](http://www.idt.mdh.se/kurser/cd5560/02_03/senaste_nytt/1+1.pdf), using the Peano axioms. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/39 "2004-10-25T16:09:43Z")
> [@](#): > > provided that we agree on what “1”, “+”, “=” and “2” mean, this is incredibly easy If we agree that the epistemology called “science” deals with _reality_ while the epistemology called “mathematics” deals with _metaphysical_ entities, I’d offer this quote on whether proving 1+1=2 _scientifically_ was “easy”: > [@](#): > > _ **Albert Einstein, 1921** _: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003/40 "2004-10-25T16:15:20Z")
> [@Ilsa\_Lund](#): > > No one will be kept up at night after having participated in a paranormal thread wondering “Oh my goodness! Where is **Aeschines?** What does he think? What will he say?” The best way to fade into the background is not to start a thread broadcasting it. I disagree. Until a few weeks ago, if someone had gone into CS and started a _Showgirls_ thread, regular posters would have all been saying, “Where’s **lissener**?” Not that I’m picking on ol’ **lissener** , I’m just saying that certain long time posters are expected to show up in certain threads. I think this thread is a good idea, because if **Aeschines’s** presence is requested in a paranormal thread, all he has to do is link to this one and be done with it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-bowing-out-of-all-future-paranormal-threads/271003.md?page=3)