A lot of the chatters have expressed the opinion that I am making a POST HOC FALLACY. There’s a very good possibility that they could be right.
There’s also a good possibility that they could be wrong, too. My point is that I DON’T KNOW. I don’t KNOW if the Ouija Board caused the schizophrenia. I wish I had the funds to investigate it.
Discussions such as these can get hopelessly baroque when discussing the unknown. But flat out labeling my opinions as a POST HOC FALLACY is presumptuous, too. It is well known that environmental factors can trigger clinical depression. Why cannot environmental factors also trigger schizophrenia?
It’s difficult to know where to draw the line between a logical conclusion or a POST HOC FALLACY. After all, if someone puts their finger in the fire, and subsequently get a blister, is THAT a POST HOC FALLACY?
I don’t KNOW if my opinions are POST HOC FALLACY or not. My mind is open, and receptive to ideas. That’s why I’d like to see the research.
My main point is that attitudes like Skeptic’s Dictionary on Jane Roberts (liar, cheat, fraud) may not be medically accurate, and downright dangerous. It’s dangerous to call someone a “fraud” when she might be in dire need of medical attention!
Oh YEAH?!? So how do you KNOW that the evil spirits weren’t driven away by worrying over how to pay the doctor bills? Maybe Prozac is poison to evil spirits? Betcha never THOUGHT of that did you Mr. Smarty-pants Skeptic! Go ahead and refuse to believe in ghosts, spirits, leprechauns, alien abductions, Bigfoot, Nessie, the healing power of crystals, aromatherapy, Qi, astrology, tarot cards, seances, free energy, fairies, black helicopters, demonic possession, Atlantis, love potions, voodoo dolls, mummy’s curses, the bad mojo of Friday the 13th, witch riding, dowsing, astral projection, and past life regression! I don’t care because I have FAITH! They say that faith can MOVE MOUNTAUNS, and what does science say? Whole CONTINENTS moving! Even THAT isn’t enough for you skeptics! You are just AFRAID to look at the evidence! ASK me about all the spooky supernatural connections between Lincoln and Kennedy! I DARE you! You don’t want to believe? FINE! You made me so mad I put a CURSE on YOU. So just try and deny the TRUTH when your elbows turn green, your testicles shrink, and you are afflicted with severe halitosis! So who’s laughing NOW science-boy? Huh? You skeptics think you’re so SMART! Well I have just gotten my first recruit in a SURE-FIRE money-making venture where ALL you have to do is pay $250 to join and then get three others to join under you. Once they start getting recruits, and the recruits start getting recruits, and so on, the money is just going to POUR in! Hah! I will be able to pay off the acupuncturist who is CURING my colon cancer and still have enough left over to invest in a REVOLUTIONARY new automotive engine that will assuredly return $1,000,000 dollars for a measly $10,000 investment! I could write even more, but my tummy hurts real bad and I have to go sit under my pyramid to absorb the healing rays.
What position do you propose taking in response to someone who claims to experience visions and/or hear voices from beyond?
How do you believe that position differ from that of a skeptic?
You are misunderstanding the situation here. A skeptical position (i.e. “The Ouija Board itself cannot channel spirits; it operates by involuntary movements”) leads naturally into the next question, “Why does my wife think that the Ouija Board is telling her to kill herself?” The husband in your story very clearly adopts this position, asks that very question, and in response seeks qualified psychiatric help.
A non-skeptic, one who believes in the supposed POWERS of the Ouija Board would be the one unable to offer here any help. If the spirits from beyond really are asking you to kill yourself, what are you going to do after all?
Jeremytt, perhaps listing the full name will let you understand your error more clearly. The fallacy lies not in concluding that one event has caused a succeeding event. It lies in concluding that the causality is implied by the temporal relationship.
We have a great deal of empirical evidence that placing fingers in a fire can cause burns, and that burns can cause blisters. We also have well understood mechanisms for the “prpogation” of the observed effect (heat transfer, cellular damage, etc.) You have simply mentioned one instance in which a woman was diagnosed as schizophrenic after using a ouija board. To draw a conclusion from such an anecdote is a logical fallacy. To believe that a connection is equally as likely as unlikely under such circumstances is also a fallacy.
You started this thread after I vomited on an aircraft over Georgia. It is POSSIBLE that this thread was caused by my vomiting. You do not KNOW that there was no relation. Both of those statements are true in the most rigorous senses of “possibility” and “know”. Nevertheless, to keep your mind open to such “possibilities” will soon result in a head full of vomit.
the skeptics Dictionary labels her a fraud. Do you think it is possible (using your open mind) that the author(s) based that decision on more factors than the facts that she used a ouija board and claimed to hear voices?
This was the most damning statement I found. Maybe there is another section discussing her use of Ouija boards and denouncing her categorically as a fraud. Or perhaps you are referring to a different source? In any case, please give us a link.
Jeremy,
I’ve worked for a law firm for over a year, and before then, was a student for six, and one of the things I’ve learn in both an academic and a legal environment is that it’s a bad idea to state a fact or draw a conclusion without being able to cite the fact you’re stating, or be able to clearly explain how you came to that conclusion.
You seem to have suggested that Ouija boards cause, or somehow contribute to schizophrenia. Supporting that claim, you give an example of a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia who had, prior to her diagnosis, used an Ouija board. However, when using inductive reasoning, one case is insufficient. You can’t generalize from one case…and that’s the problem some people have with what you wrote…it seems to them like you are.
I was speaking with a family member over the holidays and he brought to me an article he’d found on the internet about some machine or another that could apparently detect some sort of ‘aura’ around human beings (I think it was by some Russian scientist who’s now deceased but I can’t recall all the exact details). Being a self-identified skeptic he got the reaction he was lookign for when I said that, as I’d never encountered the story before, that I would have to do further research before giving any concrete opinions on the subject but the idea seemed rather farfetched.
From there the discussion turned to the merits of scientific periodicals and the skeptical media, (such as Nature and the Skeptic’s Dictionary and SI), which I have quoted liberally from in the past during discussions. He told me that he doesn’t believe the articles in those publications any more than he believes the ideas put forth by creationists and their ilk because they also have agendas which they push just as aggressively. “Maintaining of the status quo” I believe was his exact assertion. I assumed what he was talking about was what is considered generally accepted knowledge, of which I think aura detecting machines are not.
He also said that he thought the scientific method was inherently flawed but I didn’t pursue the conversation much further.
This is probably a slight hijack, and if it is I apologize, but I thought the experience was relevant to the thread.
I have been paying attention to your posts. Could you pay attention to mine? I didn’t question how you know she had no history of previous mental illness, what I questioned was how you know that she had no previous mental illness. We have no history of people living more than a few thousand years ago. Does that mean that humans have existed for only a few thousand years? About the same time that people started keeping histories, advanced agriculture developed. Does that mean that advanced agriculture caused humans to appear out of nowhere? Or does it mean that agriculture made the humans that already existed more noticeable?
Jihi, welcome to the SDMB. I don’t think you were hijacking at all. One of the main oppositions to science and skepticism is indeed that scientists somehow have some agenda they’re pushing. I suspect that many have their own agendas and perforce assume that everyone else must as well–I see this all to often in discussions of creation “science.”
Again, this happens a lot. “I don’t understand it, so it must be flawed.” Fortunately, we’re here to stamp out ignorance.
Would anybody here be generous enough to show me how to do multiple quotes? There are at least 4 people who have made very good points, and I’d like to address them…
There are a couple of ways. One is to cut and paste, placing the phrase “quote” surrounded by brackets at the beginning, and “/quote” surrounded by brackets at the end. Another way is to press the “reply with quotes” button at the end of each post (right most button at very end of post). If you want to have all of them in one post:
on a PC, right click on each button, then choose “open in new window”. Then cut and paste all of the resulting windows into one window.
on a mac, click and hold down. Choose “open in new window” and proceed as previously described.
Obviously, Ouija boards don’t cause mental illness - they are nothing more than wood, paint, and IIRC a little bit of metal on the pointer thingy - nothing too likely to cause brain disturbance. But, I think Jeremy might be on to something that MAY have been handled in someone’s doctoral dissertation somewhere:
Are people who believe in the supernatural more likely to be diagnosed with mental illness?
and/or
Are people who believe themselves to be “sensitive” more likely to be diagnosed with mental illness?
Good questions. Which came first the board or the illness?
Many christians think the ouija will attract evil spirits. Of course, many folk used to think evil spirits were what caused epilepsy too.
religious thinking permeates this culture. even atheists often sound like they think RELIGIOUSLY.
the dictionary definition of BELIEVE i usually find is “to accept something as true without absolute proof.” the first problem with this definition is the word absolute. what is the difference between a “proof” and an “absolute proof?” this implies there are DEGREES of proof, or is at the very least redundant. and what constitutes PROOF in physical reality. there are almost always alternative explanations they may just SEEM improbable. how often has what seemed to be improbable turned out to be true, there were just other unknown factors involved. time slowing down because of gravity and near light speed still seems totally wierd to me.
so the definition of BELIEVE that i use is: to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. therefore belief is stupid by definition. i either KNOW or SUSPECT.
now the psycho-drugs could disable brain functions which enable communication with hypothetical invisible entities. it is not the ouija board that matters but the opening of the mind and inviting contact. what kind of decarnate humans might accept the invitation. the “evil spirits” are simply human beings not occupying bodies at the current time. i admit the “evil spirits” sound silly without a complete paradigm. you have to include reincarnation and these people are just hanging out in “sheol.” of course that is the old testament word translated as HELL.
Well, Dal, the first step then would be to prove that reincarnation and sheol exist. And, I’d sort of disagree with you that “sheol” can best be translated as “hell”. I mean, that is a common translation, but “hell” has connotations of suffering and punishment that “sheol” doesn’t.
I’m separating this for a reason. I disagree with your definitions, but am interested in your own internal consistency.
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT that human brains can communicate with “invisible entities?”
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT that psycho drugs disable these functions?
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT this?
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT that human beings are capable of disassociating their “spirit” from their bodies?
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT the existence of a “spirit?”
I SUSPECT that you don’t have any evidence of these things. Instead, by your own definitions, you simply BELIEVE in all these things.
