astral projection (1 Viewer)

[Zen Butler]

In high-school we had 4-way window pane and Alan Watts , we actually figured It out.

 

[RobertR]

Randi is not a skeptic, he's a dogmatist (if that's a word) with a very closed mind.

I disagree completely. Randi is a TRUE skeptic, ie one who simply says "show me". The fact that he's willing to take on all comers with the million dollar prize proves his mind is not closed. I get the impression that some people define an "open" mind as one that says "unless it's absolutely disproven, I pass no judgement on whether it's true", whereas the open minded skeptic says "I'll believe your claim when you provide proof commensurate with how extraordinary the claim is". There is nothing "close minded" about that.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Agreed. Read Mr. Randi's writings in Skeptical Inquirer, or listen more closely to what he says. A true skeptic is as open-minded as they come. The catch is, one must be prepared to back up his or her claims, because Mr. Randi will sure as hell see through a scam.

He is not dogmatic nor close-minded. Read his writings.

 

[Rain]

To refuse to accept that something as possible because it defies our technological capacity to measure it is not only closed minded and dogmatic, but somewhat arrogant.

I suppose Randi would have refuted the existence of ultraviolet radiation before we developed the tools by which to measure it.

Many scientists who are now heralded for making some of the most significant discoveries lost their heads because they were unable to provide immediate definitive proof of their theories. Of course, it turned out they were right all along.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The reason for rejecting notions of "astral projection" is that there is absolutely zero evidence to support claims of its existence. To require evidence is not being close-minded; it's rational, and a requisite for science. And astral projection is yet another nonsensical component in a seemingly endless pantheon of silly "new age" claims. Remember what Dr. Sagan said about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. And a more careful reading of Mr. Randi's frequent columns and articles might be in order. Know what you're criticizing.

 

[Rain]

We are not talking about accepting something as fact, we are talking about accepting something as possibility.

Phenomenon are reporteded that defy our capacity for explanation. That does not necessarily mean they are not happening. That does not necessarily mean they are happening.

Just because something cannot be proven (yet?) doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

For the record, I have never encountered astral projection in any form, so I have no particular reason to believe it exists (which I don't). On the other hand, I recognize that we do not have scientific explanations for everything so I cannot simply assume that it doesn't exist (which I don't).

I've had this debate before on HTF. It's fairly pointless if you cling to the idea that you must either believe in something or not believe in it (which I don't).

Mr. Wilson is far more articulate (and amusing) on these matters than I, so once again I recommend his writings.

 

[RobertR]

That does not necessarily mean they are not happening. That does not necessarily mean they are happening.

Just because something cannot be proven (yet?) doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

Herein lies the difference in philosophy. Skeptics require a sound epistemological basis to believe in the existence of something. Nonskeptics ask for no evidence to believe in things. An example is the invisible elf on your head, which a nonskeptic believes COULD exist despite there being no evidence for it.

 

[ChrisMatson]

Before something is "discovered" you can't say it does or doesn't exist.

You could say, "Something is causing this thing to happen, let's find out what it is." Through a series of experiments, you could develop a theory as to what causes a phenomenon and then give it a name (eponymous, if you like).

So, I don't think that Mr. Randi would say that something that actually happens (something that can be demonstrated and/or measured) doesn't exist. More likely, he wuold come to the conclusion that something has happened and a series of experiments must be done to figure out how and why.

 

[Anders Englund]

Skeptics require a sound epistemological basis to believe in the existence of something.

This is a very sensible aproach, which I don't disagree with. But there is a difference between believing in something and accepting the possibility. If people didn't accept the possibility that there could be things "out there" that we didn't know about, there would be no incentive whatsoever to do any research.
--Anders

 

[Rain]

Publications such as The Skeptical Inquirer REGULARLY explain supposedly “unexplainable” phenomena.

Yes and many times those "explanations" are as hypothetical as the very phenomenon being explained. "No, it absolutely cannot be an extraterrestrial space craft, it's probably just a weather balloon."
(Oh, and before you run with that last comment, no I'm not saying that I believe in extra terrestrial spacecraft...just making a point.)

 

[RobertR]

there is a difference between believing in something and accepting the possibility. If people didn't accept the possibility that there could be things "out there" that we didn't know about, there would be no incentive whatsoever to do any research.

The amusing thing about this distinction is that "psychics", "talkers to the dead", "astral projectionists", etc. never speak solely in terms of "possibilities". They claim that they already HAVE done the research, and they demand that people believe in what they claim. They then profess outrage when skeptics ask for proof. See the "free energy" thread:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...threadid=92509
here for an example. Have you EVER seen anyone publish something or announce a press conference to simply announce the "possibility" of something? I haven't.

 

[Jack Briggs]

What Robert said. Again.

Look, to those who would criticize Mr. Randi and his much-needed work, try to demonstrate that you have at least read the man's articles and columns.

More suggested reading: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time, by Michael Shermer (editor of Skeptic), with a foreword by the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould.

 

[Anders Englund]

Have you EVER seen anyone publish something or announce a press conference to simply announce the "possibility" of something?

No, because that would be stupid. But if you don't personally believe (man, I hate spelling that) that something is possibile, you'd never pursue it.

--Anders

 

[Max Leung]

What is a Skeptic?
What does it mean to be a skeptic? Some people believe that skepticism is rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas—no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. Skeptics are from Missouri—the “show me” state. When we hear a fantastic claim we say, “that’s nice, prove it.”
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you are skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think. To paraphrase Descartes:
Sum Ergo Cogito—I Am Therefore I Think.

This credo from skeptic.com sums up my feelings nicely:
"I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them."
(If you read the human nature thread that popped up a few weeks ago you'll understand why I like that quote! )

 

[Rain]

They claim that they already HAVE done the research, and they demand that people believe in what they claim.

Well now, that's just silly, isn't it? And not what I'm talking about at all.

 

[RobertR]

Yes and many times those "explanations" are as hypothetical as the very phenomenon being explained. "No, it absolutely cannot be an extraterrestrial space craft, it's probably just a weather balloon."

Are you familiar with the principle of Occam's Razor? If the "weather balloon" theory gives a perfectly good explanation for all the observed facts (thereby refuting the "defies explanation" claim), then there's no reason to believe in something so extraordinary as outer space aliens. As Carl Sagan said, if you make an extraordinary claim, you must provide extraordinary proof. There is NOTHING about "UFOs" that defies "mundane" explanation.

That would be like thinking that invisible gremlins kept your car from starting instead of your battery dying. We don't need the gremlin explanation. Neither do we need the alien explanation.

 

[Marshall Alsup]

Well, I don't dismiss Astral Projection. The reason is simple: there is shit we don't understand yet! Explain to me why all these protons, neutrons, and electrons add up to me (consciousness I mean). This can not be explained. This shows me that we don't even come close to understanding everything and (for me at least) leaves the door to metaphysics open. While I've never seen anything even remotely metaphysical I still believe that its possible.
I think astral projection is a cool subject. I've had some of the pre-projection physical things happen to me and wondered if I could induce it. I've never really put in the effort to try though.

Point: I think its an interesting subject for discussion, and I frankly don't care what skeptics think because it dosen't matter to me what they think about it.

-Marshall

 

[Steve Enemark]

This can not be explained.

WRONG! The correct answer: "This has not yet been explained". Just because science hasn't explained consciousness doesn't mean it never will.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Which kind of puts the kibosh on the rest of your post.

What's wrong with wanting to see proof instead of accepting unquestioningly anything anybody says? Science got Voyagers 1 and 2 to the very edge of the Solar System. Channelers and soothsayers and astral projectors write books that sell at New Age bookstores.

Science gave us HDTV. Non-science gave us Fox's "alien autopsy" thing from eight years ago.

Anybody remember Amazon Women on the Moon? If so, remember the parody segment called "Is It Real—Or is it Bullshit"?

 

[Marshall Alsup]

Which kind of puts the kibosh on the rest of your post.

Again, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that I think it may be possible, and that if I encounter a skeptic that doesn't believe it possible I wouldn't be upset by the fact that they disagree with me. Hell I'm not sure by a long way! I just think it MAY be possible. When I said "I don't care what they think" I meant that it doesn't bother me that a skeptic disagrees. I didn't mean that a skeptics opinion is invalid to me.

Reading my last post I can defiantly see how I came off completely different that I was intending. I forget that when somebody reads your words rather than hears them those words can sometimes have a completely different meaning. :b

-Marshall