|
StellaByStarlite -> RE: Anyone believe in the supernatural? (4/5/2007 6:40:53 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SusanofO
I see your point, I really do, but actually, there is a lot of methodology attrached to investigating claims of ESP and hauntings, etc. It just can't seem to penetrate the worldview of some skeptics. It isn't necessarily the fault of the methodology being used, IMO. Sometimes it is the refusal of the person with a skeptical out-look to open their mind to anything that doesn't fit their model of what is considered "scientifically proven to exist."
The truth is, is that paranormal methodology produces substandard results. Think about it...with all the gadgets and thingamabobs these investigators have, what have they really given besides shaky evidence? Blurry photos, faint EVP recordings, and a zillion anecdotes. None of it is good enough to turn a speculation into a hypothesis. It's not close-minded to be aware of the flaws in human thought processes and so reserve judgement on any claim.
Now, in my limited experience, paranormal investigators are interested in one thing and one thing only: to prove their claim
correct. Not only does that lead to confirmation bias, but it's also leaving out a few steps of scientific method. If they want to be taken more seriously, they need to answer a few meaty questions first. What IS this energy? Why does it happen to some people, but not others? How does it happen? Tough questions, but necessary ones. It's not enough to "prove" something exists.
The questions I gave are just basic examples. They are inquiries every scientist needs to explore in detail. In other words.. do the work, if you're that serious, you know? If paranormal/supernatural investigators want to be accepted by science, they need to play by the rules of science.
When one considers that some of what is now considered "fact" was once considered "crazy", (like the Earth revolving around the sun, for example) this is a shame. Because who is to say that a few hundred years from now, things like ESP and ghosts won't have become scienttifcally factually "proven" to exist?
True. But the difference is.. is that if one scientific theory is discarded, then another one replaces it. And it takes a long time for paradigms to switch. We now know that the earth revolves around the sun because we acquired new information. I'll say it again... if folks want to prove ESP and ghosts exist, then they need to go and get their hands dirty. Tests, peer-reviewed journals, more tests, vigorous debate with their colleagues, looking at every possible way their speculation could be false.
A skeptic claiming to investigate much with an open mind when they are actually looking to disprove something's existence, is hardly un -biased investigstion. Any date can be skewed, and any premise or hypothesis set up to be more, (or less), likely to turn up any "scientifically proveable" fruit.
It's up to the person making the claim to provide proof. And looking at all possible alternatives as to why a claim doesn't fit is just sound scientific practice. Anything else would be automatically jumping from one thing to the next, if that makes any sense.
Scientists are human, too... very prone to ego and flaws and attachment to their ideas. So... don't you think that if there ANY solid chance to prove the existence of, say, ghosts... there would be a few scientists that would jump on it? Talk about Nobel Prize material. ;) But so far.. the tests have failed scrutiny.
My question is: What is the skeptic's incentive for even bothering to investigate something like a haunting? I am thinking there really isn't any. My question, if this is true, would be: How would any "scientific facts" ever considered "proveable" or "proven" get a chance of discoverey if there really isn't any incentive for investigation (besides disproving something's existence)?
It's the burden of proof. If somebdy is to make a claim that ghosts exist, then it's completely up to them to do the work and provide solid evidence. You're right.. I don't have incentive to investigate, because I don't believe in the supernatural's existence. If somebody offered evidence, I'd look at it a bit more closely.
And how would this allow any chance for advancement of a field currently considered a realm of the paranormal? It mostly doesn't, IMO. Then some skeptics just turn around and say (as if surprised): "Well, see? there isnt any reoutable scientific commun ity that has "proven" the eixstence of X or Y, so it just isn't "real." It's could be a viscous circle of non-investigation furthering non-investigatability - but they don't see this developmental cycle of "facts" and "non-facts", at all, usually.
The paranormal is being investigated, sort of. As soon as investigators come up with something worth noticing, I'm sure a whole bunch of skeptics will examine. As it stands... the "facts" and "non-facts" have yet to separate. Ghosthunters have yet to answer some very basic questions about why the phenomena occur in the first place.
I think some definition of what is considered a "scientific methodology" might be valuble in this discussion, as well as some agreement of what constitutes "proof" something exists. I also noticed that meatcleaver never did answer my question re: That he already most likely believes in things that can't be "proven" (like fantasy, or the realm of the imagination) - he just completely let that go.
Wellll... I'm not Meatcleaver. <g> But in my opinion.. things that aren't testable might as well not exist, to ME. Now, in the future... we might gather more information, more data, more technology.. to prove the existence of a few things. Or, we might not. I'll remain happily skeptical of extraordinary claims. until then. I'll apply Occam's Razor to anecdotes and personal experiences ( including my own) That's not a bad way to live life, is it?
If these things exist, I am curious why someone would shut out much of anything existing, at least in the realm of possibility, unless they've been conditioned completely to accept some things as "scientifically proven". if that's the case, I'd like to know what those criteria consist of, because I really am curious what they'd be.
The main criteria is testability. Some things are, obviously not testable.. like the existence of an afterlife or god/gods. But some things are very testable, like astrology. Of course.. asking the right questions is up there too. The criteria for proof depends entirely on what the claim is. Ghosts, for instance... what do ghosts consist of? Why are some places haunted and some aren't? If a ghosthunter could at LEAST offer a good explanation to some of these questions, I'd be more open.
Also.. if an explanation of a ghost goes wildly counter to our current knowledge of natural law, like physics, yeah, I'm skeptical. Why wouldn't anybody be?
Why is it that it's acceptable to doubt some claims but not others? If there was a family up the street that insisted there were invisible dragons living in their basement, what would your reaction be? If you asked the family to prove their claim, and it wasn't to your satisfaction, would you take their word for it?
What kind of evidence would satisfy you?
- Susan
|
|
|
|
