THE GHOST POST (1 Viewer)

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

Well, what is logical to some, or even most, isn't logical to others, I simply don't agree with it, never have.

John, I can easily imagine a scenario where you would not only agree that trying to prove a negative makes no sense, but you would demand that others think that way. Suppose you were arrested for some heinous crime. You're told that no proof is needed (indeed, convincing proof) that you did it, but that the burden of proof is on you to prove that you DIDN'T do it. Now tell me that you wouldn't think the people who told you that weren't irrational and unreasonable, and their point of view would be just as valid as having to prove that you did it.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

John, Brian didn't say it was "logical to some or even most," he stated that it is a "logical fallacy", meaning it has no use in a logical debate. It is like requiring someone to count to infinity, You simply can't do it, so requiring someone to do it in the course of a debate is to assign an impossible task, and therefore irrelevant to the debate.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Like I said I simply don't think that way, I've always viewed the requirement of the believer to provide proof of their claims while the non-believers do not a convenient way for skeptics to gain the intellectual upper hand in such a debate and establish dominance in said debate.


To me it's fair to ask a skeptic if he/she can prove that ghosts don't exist if they're going to ask me for proof that they do, particularly if they become condescending about it like, in my experience, most do, no offense to anyone here.


That may not be the way it works but to be honest I don't care, I've never been one to agree with things that are widely accepted as normal if I don't agree with it.


It's also noteworthy that most of these kinds of debates become confrontational, specifically the skeptics belittling the believer, either consciously or otherwise, so in those cases my way of thinking is a retaliatory response, if these people are going to drill me for answers they know I cannot provide I will damn sure do the same.


I've been burned by skeptics and their questions so I've taken on the mantra that if you've got questions for me...I've got a few of my own.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

I've always viewed the requirement of the believer to provide proof of their claims while the non-believers do not a convenient way for skeptics to gain the intellectual upper hand in such a debate and establish dominance in said debate.


To me it's fair to ask a skeptic if he/she can prove that ghosts don't exist if they're going to ask me for proof that they do, particularly if they become condescending about it like, in my experience, most do, no offense to anyone here.


That may not be the way it works but to be honest I don't care, I've never been one to agree with things that are widely accepted as normal if I don't agree with it.

Of course the skeptic is going to use logic when debating a "believer". You seem to think that doing so is somehow "unfair", or equivalent to an ad hominem attack. It isn't. It's simply using valid and critical thinking. Such thinking isn't dependent on your emotional reaction to it. If it's a fact that A is greater than B, and C is greater than A, it makes no sense for you to say "I don't accept that C is greater than B, because that logic is just a way for someone to be condescending and gain the intellectual upper hand". All you're doing is responding emotionally, which amounts to a nonargument.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Originally Posted by RobertR

I've always viewed the requirement of the believer to provide proof of their claims while the non-believers do not a convenient way for skeptics to gain the intellectual upper hand in such a debate and establish dominance in said debate.


To me it's fair to ask a skeptic if he/she can prove that ghosts don't exist if they're going to ask me for proof that they do, particularly if they become condescending about it like, in my experience, most do, no offense to anyone here.


That may not be the way it works but to be honest I don't care, I've never been one to agree with things that are widely accepted as normal if I don't agree with it.

Of course the skeptic is going to use logic when debating a "believer". You seem to think that doing so is somehow "unfair", or equivalent to an ad hominem attack. It isn't. It's simply using valid and critical thinking. Such thinking isn't dependent on your emotional reaction to it. If it's a fact that A is greater than B, and C is greater than A, it makes no sense for you to say "I don't accept that C is greater than B, because that logic is just a way for someone to be condescending and gain the intellectual upper hand". All you're doing is responding emotionally, which amounts to a nonargument.

[/QUOTE]

Your not getting what I'm saying, of course a skeptic can use logical thinking, all he or she wants, as can I, but what I have a problem with are those who don't temper their logical thinking with politeness and consideration for the believer, far too often the debate turns on the believer in a negative way, I've seen it happen time and again, because the skeptics allow their logical thinking to cloud what to me is more important in keeping a good debate going which is to be truly receptive of what the believer wants to say.


Let me sum up what I've been saying as simply as possible, skeptics can ask all the questions they want and they can apply as much critical thinking that they want all I ask is that they do it respectfully and politely and not look down upon the believer from some perceived high ground or belittle them as is the case most of the time, hell with some comments I can practically hear them laughing secretly from behind their keyboard at the believer.


My argument has more to do with the nature of the skeptics attitudes and how they conduct themselves in debates and not the criteria or method of thinking that they use.


Be smart but be nice, all I'm saying here.


Maybe ghosts exist and maybe they don't, all I ask is to be able to talk about it without feeling like a freak or a nutcase and IMO that isn't possible on the internet.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I'm sorry John, but if you insist on ignoring thousands of years of logical and philosophical laws, then you are the one being condescending. If arrogance and condescension in the face of anecdotal evidence of the paranormal which has no scientific proof is impolite, then exactly what is what is the level of arrogance/condescension involved in dismissing thousands of years of science and logic?

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Because I don't agree with it, it is not my intention to be condescending.


Simply because something has been around for thousands of years and has been accepted does not disqualify it from being called into question, I'm not ignoring it, I'm questioning it and that's my right.


Why is it so difficult to understand? It isn't complicated, why is it so wrong for a believer to ask skeptics to prove that certain phenomenon doesn't exist yet they can ask believers to prove they do?


To me it is the very definition of fairness in a debate, otherwise it makes for a pretty one sided discussion where it's all on the believer to prove his or her experience or belief and the skeptic doesn't need to prove a thing, I'm sorry but I never saw the logic behind that way of thinking at all.


Sorry if that makes no sense to some or comes off as offensive to what some believe but that's me, don't take it personally.


I might be full of shit but hey, it's how I think, I'm not going to come in here and lie to you and pretend I think otherwise when I don't.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!





Let me sum up what I've been saying as simply as possible, skeptics can ask all the questions they want and they can apply as much critical thinking that they want all I ask is that they do it respectfully and politely and not look down upon the believer from some perceived high ground or belittle them as is the case most of the time, hell with some comments I can practically hear them laughing secretly from behind their keyboard at the believer.


My argument has more to do with the nature of the skeptics attitudes and how they conduct themselves in debates and not the criteria or method of thinking that they use.


Be smart but be nice, all I'm saying here.


Maybe ghosts exist and maybe they don't, all I ask is to be able to talk about it without feeling like a freak or a nutcase and IMO that isn't possible on the internet.

I would say that the attitude of the skeptic has much to do with the motivations of the person claiming paranormal experiences or abilities. If, for example, we're talking about the likes of John Edwards, Uri Geller, or Sylvia Browne, who are clearly con artists out to make a buck by duping the gullible, then yes, skeptics will be more hostile towards them. However, skeptics don't automatically exhibit condescension towards believers. I'll cite what I posted in the Skeptical Thread (post #14):


http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/306736/the-skeptical-thread


I don't think you can honestly say that the woman (who genuinely believed she had psychic abilities) was "treated like a freak or a nutcase", but rather, quite respectfully.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I agree with you on that, if the one making the claim comes across with a certain demeanor or are clearly lying than yes hostility on the part of the skeptic is understandable, me I wouldn't even bother engaging these people in any discussion at all if I could clearly tell they were con artists.


As for skeptics not usually exhibiting some degree of hostility towards believers I wish I could believe that but from the discussions I've seen and myself experienced that's not the case most of the time, no not always but enough for me to avoid certain topics on the internet.


Now, some might not know they're coming off that way or the believer is reading hostility in their comments when there is none intended but most of the comments hard skeptics make just drip with some degree of sarcasm, contempt and yes condescension.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!
why is it so wrong for a believer to ask skeptics to prove that certain phenomenon doesn't exist yet they can ask believers to prove they do?

It's a logical fallacy.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Well, I started out saying that my way of thinking wasn't popular and now you know what I meant lol.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!


I might be full of shit but hey, it's how I think, I'm not going to come in here and lie to you and pretend I think otherwise when I don't.

You cannot "question" a logical fallacy anymore than you can "question" 1+1 = 2. It's not an opinion, or an interpretation, it is a fact Asking someone to do the impossible in order to prove their point means they can never prove their point. Using this as a sole criteria to prove a point is a logical fallacy and is not allowed in a debate, civil or otherwise. Period. End of discusssion. Continuing to believe that someone should have to prove a negative will lead to derision, scorn, and general impoliteness, which is what I thought you were trying to avboid.

 

[RobertR]

The other problem with paranormal phenomena is that they appear to violate known scientific laws. Ghosts and telekinesis, for example, would seem not to behave according to the laws of thermodynamics. Energy can’t come from “nothing”, and it can’t do work without at least some of it getting used up. That’s another reason why you need very strong positive evidence. There’s a HUGE amount of established science to overcome. This is something "believers" are obligated to do, and yes, it is "unbalanced", because skeptics have no corresponding burden to prove established science.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

No no, Jeff, I've experienced all the negatives you mentioned by merely mentioning that I believe in the paranormal, my line of thought regarding burden of proof never even came up.


I wouldn't ask someone to prove the impossible which is what I've been saying, I said that in my first post in this thread, just as they cannot disprove paranormal phenomenon so too can't I prove it exists...it's a stalemate discussion, one in which both sides are in the same position.


I've never experienced what I believe to be a ghost or what have you so thankfully I haven't been put into a position to prove it to anyone but if I ever do you better believe I won't be doing it on a message board lol.


Robert, one of the theories regarding cold spots in haunting cases is that it is a physical manifestation of an entity drawing energy from the surrounding air or environment in order to either appear or manipulate objects which may explain why people claim that they see something and then an instant later they don't.


The one aspect of haunting phenomenon that I've always had a problem with is what's known as a residual haunting or recurring haunting by which an event in the past becomes "imprinted" on an environment or location and keeps replaying itself over and over like a recording, I personally don't see how that's possible but people have made claims to that effect.


I'm convinced that most reported haunting cases can be explained by high EMF fields being present in the location unbeknownst to the witness, that can cause headaches, nausea, feelings of uneasiness and hallucinations. Most haunting cases can be taken care of by hiring a good electrician to better insulate wiring in the location.

 

[RobertR]

If the heat is being “taken” from somewhere, it must go somewhere else, ie there must be a corresponding hot area (refrigerators emit heat). The heat can’t go “nowhere”.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I agree but that's the theory.

 

[RobertR]

Well, it's a flawed theory, because it contradicts what we know about thermodynamics and heat transfer. This is what I mean about having to overcome known science.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Still, I have read cases where people have felt cold spots in places where there shouldn't or couldn't be, in rooms with no drafts or vents, that's pretty odd.

 

[RobertR]

Felt or measured? See, a skeptic is going to want to know a lot about the conditions, possible variables, etc. By the way, I appreciate your additions to post #54.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Thanks, I may be a believer but I'm not a complete sucker who won't try to find logical explanations first lol.