THE GHOST POST - Page 4

Oh now I understand; you arrogant, condescending, ignorant, stupid, unenlightened . . uhhh . . . person.


Besides, you forgot I also said "accusations" and by your own description of your response, on that matter you are guilty as charged.

 

The burden of proof must be on the person making the extraordinary claim.  You've been shown why this is logically necessary.  You've also been shown that skeptics are quite willing to test extraordinary claims (ie make the effort).  So that "adjective" doesn't hold up.

 

 

 

In other words, you're suggesting that it's "responsible" to accept claims with no evidence they're true.   You'd make an interesting juror, to say the least.  Another "adjective" that doesn't cut it.

 

 

 

It was demonstrated that skeptics are open to testing extraordinary claims, which disproves your "skeptics are never open to anything" claim (a claim you made without providing any proof for it, BTW).  It was also demonstrated to you that scientists demand proof of extraordinary claims, exactly like skeptics.  It would appear that not only do you advocate accepting extraordinary claims without evidence, you ignore evidence that contradicts what you believe.

 

That makes you 0 for 3.  As for being "missionaries", I welcome those who are willing to make the effort to counter the rampant mysticism and pseudoscience in today's world, which FAR outweighs the effort to counter it, BTW.  It's interesting that you consider such a comparatively small effort to be such a threat.

 

Not to be pedantic, but as long as we are defining our terms, a couple of people need to learn the actual difference between a scientific hypothesis, theory, and law. In short, Laws are not theories, and theories are not hypotheses. Instead they are each an elevation of the other in terms of proof and universal acceptance, with Laws being accepted as universal fact.

See this link: Link to definitions

 

"You've also been shown that skeptics are quite willing to test extraordinary claims (ie make the effort). "

 

I can't say I've really been shown that. When I think of research into extraordinary claims, I see the big grants have come from names like Rockefeller, Firmage, Bigelow... All names reviled by skeptics. Do skeptics organizations give grants to researchers at groups like IONS? Or to any other open-minded research organization? (If you are referring to the James Randi Challenge, please give that publicity stunt a rest, it is certainly not a pattern of funding of edge science.)

 

"In other words, you're suggesting that it's "responsible" to accept claims with no evidence they're true."

 

No, that would be really bad advice. Advising people to ignore things, things which MAY BE TRUE, simply because there is no proof is irresponsible. But that does not mean it is "responsible" to "accept claims" with no evidence they're true. Seems like you are so firmly on one side you don't see the reasonable middle ground: that it would be responsible for people to accept the POSSIBILITY that an unproven claim may be true.

 

"As for being "missionaries", I welcome those who are willing to make the effort to counter the rampant mysticism and pseudoscience in today's world, which FAR outweighs the effort to counter it, BTW.  It's interesting that you consider such a comparatively small effort to be such a threat."

 

CSICOP's budget of about 2 million in a good year is much larger than IONS annual budget, which I think is about a quarter-million in a good year. Other similar open-minded research organizations are struggling too what with the economy having impacted their main donors. So I'd say that yeah, a powerful advocacy group with a budget that large is indeed a "threat" to impartial science. Do their efforts work? Are they really a threat? Probably not; I am always pleased to see that every year, the Science & Engineering Indicators annual survey of students shows that the more education one has, the more open minded one becomes to possibilities of things that are yet unproven, but which are sometimes experienced. It must really tick off CSICOP that college students believe in the possibility of esp (or telepathy or whatever its name is this year) more than people with no college education. Maybe with 3 million bucks, they could get those damn students to reject it completely rather than being so diplomatic, so open-minded to possibilities.

 

A problem for skeptics, which doesn't seem to be a problem for impartial people, is the tendency to see things in binary -- things either "are" or "aren't". There's no room for "possibilities" that may someday be proven but for now have to remain in question. That binary trend happens in discussions here too when people who are open-minded to possibilities of things yet unproven are called "believers", as if holding something as a possibility is a "belief". It isn't a belief. It's a position that respects that science has determined some things about reality, and that some things about reality may remain in question for far longer than any of us are around to find out.

 

When you say there is a rampant "mysticism and pseudoscience" around, where do you see it exactly? Are people taking nutritional supplements an example of this? I'm just trying to think of where this spectre of "mysticism and pseudoscience" is present, since I can't say that I've seen it around. I'd wager that people taking nutritional supplements are doing so because of the possibility that they may be beneficial. They aren't being mystical or pseudoscience-y, they're just taking a reasonable position that weighs doubt about whether science has enough info to make a correct verdict, and they're weighing faith in tradition, and deciding they may as well try them on the possibility that the truth may be that they're beneficial. (I'm using supplements as an example because I can't think of anything else... "horoscopes in newspapers" used to be the clarion cry, but who reads newspapers anymore? I know if it is "rampant" there must be other examples out there...).

 

Jeff --

 

Get a thicker skin, Jeff.  Or just don't wear the black hat if you don't want to be thought of as a badguy.

That's a good link. I still have trouble remembering which is plural -- phenomenon or phenomena.

I believe that beside the words "delicious irony" in the dictionary there should be a quote from the person who whined for an entire thread about not being understood or taken seriously telling another poster to "get a thicker skin." As far as being a"bad guy" is concerned, I always consider the source of a label, usually following it with a good laugh.

Also, if you learned nothing from that link other than the Latin derived plural of a word like phenomenon, then I don't need to link the "Close Minded" video anymore, a link to your posts shall suffice.

 

I gave you a link to such a test.  It’s apparent you’ve ignored it.  I could give you links to many more such tests, but you’d likely ignore those too.  BTW, such tests also disprove your “skeptics ignore ‘possibilities’” claim.  Like I said, you ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs.  You’re also ignoring the principle of the excluded middle:  Do you accept the validity of the extraordinary claim sans evidence or don’t you?  There is no “middle ground”.  Ignoring logic is irresponsible.

 

 

 

You boast of college students believing in ESP (as if it's a given that college students are "wiser" than the population as a whole), then ask such a question.  You have a remarkable ability to ignore even statements by yourself that contradict what you believe.

 

You point to the decline of newspaper readership as some sort of “proof” that belief in astrology is declining—a logical disconnect to say the least.  TV and the Internet and supermarket tabloids are flooded with products making medical claims (with the usual “the FDA hasn’t evaluated this” weasel words) with no scientific backing.  Apparently you’ve chosen to ignore the commercials selling “mystical bracelets”, “magnetic therapy”, etc. etc.  You’ve chosen to ignore the hucksters in Roswell NM, along with all the UFO books, magazines, movies, web sites, etc. etc.  You’ve chosen to ignore homeopathic medicine, Penta Water, high end audio claims, commercials and web sites for psychics, ad nauseum.  The combined advertising budgets for the above would utterly DWARF the 2 million bucks you seem to think is so enormous.  But you’ll ignore that as well, along with the efforts of skeptics to investigate them.

 

Your ability to ignore is astounding.

 

Edited by RobertR - 1/11/11 at 12:46pm

Thanks alot! I was looking forward to reading 4 pages of scary ghost stories and got 3 1/2 pages of arguing. Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe and leave them alone. Personally, I think about 80-90% of experiences are explainable but there's that 10%-20% that tells me that there is an afterlife. That one video back on page 1 REALLY creeps me out!

Come to think of it, I have a little story that my co worker once told me. She and her husband bought her childhood home from her mother and they took a loan out to make a lot of renovations on it. She told me that the house has always been haunted while growing up, nothing scary though, they just lived with it. Well, she said one night (this was after she and her husband bought the house I think) they had some friends over for a party. it was nightime and everyone was outside in the backyard. One of her friends had to go inside and use the bathroom. The house was dark. As she walked through the living room, something caught her eye in the kitchen. She glanced over towards the kitchen and saw the figure of a woman walk across the kitchen and and disappear into the wall! Well, the friend ran outside and told my co worker what she saw. This didn't surprise her at all. She said years ago there used to be a doorway that lead from the kitchen to the backyard but it was replaced with a wall. The friend refused to go back in by herself and made my co worker go back in with her to use the bathroom!

 

 

 

Trying to equate open minded college students with mystics is a distortion. Sounds like you didn't understand my comments about binary thinking that you fall into. You say "There is no middle ground”, even after I'd explained to you that the middle ground is allowing for "possibility" when there's not enough information.

 

I could repeat that a few times, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend that people can hold something as a possibility (as something that "might" be) without endorsing it as either real or unreal. Why you are unable to see this, I don't know.

 

Moving on, I asked for examples of the "rampant mysticism" and you managed to come up with a few scraps. I'd actually written a reply about "high end audio claims" but I figured that was really reaching for examples, so I didn't post it. But since you mentioned it. So I'll just say, yeah, I wouldn't buy MonsterCables either. Who am I to deny you the idea that these things you listed are a harbinger of doom? Fair to say you named some quakery and some opportunism.

 

We agree that nutritional supplements is a big business, which you object to on the basis that it is mysticism, but I already suggested isn't mysticism so much as making an educated guess that supplements might be good for you. But since you don't understand the middle ground, you aren't able to conceive of people eating these supplements without "believing" in them. So you think people are being duped, rather than that people are taking action on the chance (not the certainty) that maybe someday folklore based links to improved health might be found to have some validity. (A folklore like "carrots help your eyesight" wasn't too far off the mark -- it isn't going to clear cataracts, but the retinol helps your night vision). The FDA prohibits labels from even implying disease claims, let alone stating them. They do allow health claims, with disclaimers, and I agree that makes sense -- it makes sense to remind people that claims are not the same as facts, and in absence of proof one way or the other, people have to take them based only the possibility, not the certainty.

 

Try asking some shoppers at Whole Foods whether they believe the supplements in their basket are certain to work, or might only possibly work. I'm confident you'll find that these folks are not in need of saving by you, and are not being duped.

 

Basically, I see skeptics sense of importance as proportional to how skeptics see ordinary people as being dupes. And since I don't look down on people in that way, I don't elevate the skeptics either.

 

Ok, so maybe I'd look down on anyone calling a 1-800-IMAPSYCHIC tv commercial... I'm not saying there isn't some shared sentiment there.

 

Anecdotal! Means nothing! There's no proof! Your friend is a huckster! Science has proven that people cannot walk through walls!

 

Also, it is more likely that your friend was hallucinating. Therefore, because likelihood is always how reality is determined, your friend was hallucinating.

 

Also, cue the "this story is second hand" complaint. Which is actually the most legitimate complaint of the lot, imo.

 

And, also, there's a skeptics group willing to station an observer there to watch for another 20 years in case it happens again.

 

 

I have said that Robert seems to be willfully failing to understand some of what I've said; but I don't believe I've been expressing the slightest bit of distress that what I've said has not been "understood" by readers of this thread. I certainly don't believe that, so I have no occasion to "whine". This isn't personal. Simply presenting points and counterpoints, and letting readers decide what they will. I'm secure in the belief that my position is indeed taken seriously by those who appreciate it. 

 

If anything, my tendency is to get a bit too rude, not too whiny. And for that I apologize now and then.

Dude, chill will ya. Relax, it's a story. I'm not saying that it's proof of ghosts. It's a personal experience someone had. I really can't comment on it since I wasn't there but I have to admit, I've many stories about ghosts walking up stairs that used to be there, or walking through walls where doorways used to be there. Bottom line is we won't know until we are dead whether or not there is an afterlife.

 

Will, if you think you haven't been whining, then that is the most blatant example of closed mindedness in this thread. Check your post above for a perfect example of childish whining concerning what you believe to be the standard responses of skeptics. You denounce science, ignore logical fact, and refuse to listen to anything that politely questions what amounts to an act of faith. At the same time, you bemoan what others state, without any rebuttal except accusations that "You just don't get it."

That, my friend, is whining.

Why is this thread still open? It was supposed to be a place for people to relate real life "ghost"stories. Instead, it seems to be nothing but a back and forth of personal sniping. This thread would have died a long time ago if it hadn't devolved into a nonbelievers/true believers debate. As it is, it is falling directly into the same category as a religious debate and, as such, has become a waste of bandwidth. 

 

You seem to have a considerable emotional investment in making some big distinction between saying "I'm open to believing the extraordinary claim if someone shows me evidence" and saying "Accepting the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence".  Both allow for seeing what claimants can come up with (BTW, you continue to blithely ignore the fact that skeptics test claims, which refutes both your "lazy skeptics" and "not open to checking out claims" nonsense).  Neither results in belief without evidence.  So you're really not as much of an "antiskeptic" as you claim to be. It seems that your only real objection to (some) skeptics is an emotional one to perceived "arrogance".  Not liking someone (according to your subjective standards), though, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Evidence is still needed, and no amount of emotional arm waving changes that.