quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Hello, Susan =)


I understood what you meant - but so what? I am not trying to be insulting but -your POV just seems so flat, and deadening, somehow, to me. And it also seems to seriously lack any reverence for, or sense of wonder at the world, and the fact the world exists at all. In fact it seems to take so much totally for granted.
Nothing could be further then the truth. Wonder is a huge part of a scientific worldview. Does knowledge and real curiosity nullify a sense of awe? Nope.
You aren't really explaining anything about the origin of the world, or even attempting to explain why you consider some things "unexplainable", and yet, you still have the arrogance to write off anyone who does have the curiosity to try to do so - and-or believes in something that you find "unproveable," as "silly and juvenile". Hmmm. 
Basically.. something "unexplainable" is just that. It means we don't have the information available to make an informed decision. This is especially true of the occult/ supernatural arena, which is pretty much all anecdotal evidence.
Curiosity just isn't enough for gathering information, either. Scientific methodology seems stodgy, but it's more or less designed to be that way to rule out error.
I wonder what kind of science teachers you and domiguy would make, with all of that invitation you seem to give to people to investigate and use their natural sense of curiosity? It is a serious comment, and not meant as an insult. But, what would prompt anyone to want to investigate anything, with that kind of "encouragement", I am wondering?
Investigation is wonderful. =) What do you think scientists do?
But again.. curiosity in itself is just a starting point, if you want yur investigation to turn up any fruit.
I mean, you only believe what other people seem to have already "proven" repeatedly, as far as accepting anything as scientific "fact" - despite the fact you also agree that 'men of science' have repeatedly been proven ultimately wrong in some of their conclusions throughout history. This seems to be contradicting yourself, in a sense.
Not at all. Being proven wrong in the science world isn't seen as a weakness, it's a benefit. Being wrong in one hypothesis means you can abandon it and move on to something else. One  theory is replaced by another more robust one when new data is gathered. That's not a bad thing, it's very practical.
I actually don't happen to believe that nothing happens to us after this life, or that "this is all there is", but since I of course cannot prove it, I'd prefer not going there, as I don't want to get into a religious discussion. Of course you are entitled to your POV, as I am to mine. No offense intended (truly).

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
we don't appear to live in an unpredictable universe

Everything is billiards balls behaving according to Newtonian mechanics, huh? Ever hear of such a novelty as quantum mechanics?

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    

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

There is something so "intelligent designerish" about the wishful thinking of people who stridently demand there is no such thing as the supernatural. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

How did the universe come to be, MC?
 
I suspect that you will bore us with the Big Bang superstition. Well, then tell us how the Big Bang came to be. (That will pose a problem, for there is no evidence at all of a Big Bang having occurred, except in the befuddled minds of some confused scientists.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

How did the universe come to be, MC?
 
I suspect that you will bore us with the Big Bang superstition. Well, then tell us how the Big Bang came to be. (That will pose a problem, for there is no evidence at all of a Big Bang having occurred, except in the befuddled minds of some confused scientists.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

If it was god that created the universe, how did god come about.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Well, we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree. I could provide evidence. There has in fct, been substantiated evidence, credited as such by many reputable scientists that ESP, for example exists, for decades. Some for ethereal figures (termed by some as "ghosts") as well. Since no exact parameters of what "proof" is has been outlined, it gets pretty fuzzy as far as "proving" anything exists, IMO. 

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

If it was god that created the universe, how did god come about.

While it's easy to bash order into chaos or to club intelligence into unintelligence or to beat artful beauty into ugliness and waste, things don't as easily form into order, intelligence and beauty. When I see the form of a lovely young woman (and the countless other delightful wonders that surround me every day) I cannot possibly deny to myself that there must be a god, of some kind...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
If it was god that created the universe, how did god come about.

God is an inaccurate term in this case. Better refer to it as the Divine. So the Divine and no universe. Therefore none of the constants of nature and the laws of physics that insecure humans desperately cling to. What existed before the Big Bang, MC? What exists inside a black hole? Science can not answer that, because science is limited to the universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The big bang is a theory, the supernatural is a belief held by those who believe.

It is not a theory. It is a mere hypothesis and a pathetic one to boot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
You're very good at saying scientists know nothing but all you have ever produced in the place of science is your own prejudices and a claim that all will be revealed in your book!

The book is available.

quote:

I find this sentence bizarre. I would say there is something so 'intelligent designerish' about the wishful thinking of people who stridently demand there is such a thing as the supernatural.

quote:

Refusing to believe in the supernatural without proof is quite a rational stance for someone who doesn't believe in a creative power, or at least until some proof has been produced.

quote:

For the thousands of years people have believed in the supernatural, the supernatural has lived on superstition and not proof. If you feel superstition is enough to convince you the supernatural exists, that is for you but it is you that adopts the 'intelligent designerish' approach to the universe.

quote:

People who believe in the supernatural generally believe in god or someother creative power that created the universe and who/which breaks its own rules to interfer in the universe. Refusing to believe there is no such thing as the supernatural requires absolutely nothing 'intelligent designerish'.