Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Debunking skeptics .....

24

Comments

  • #52
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I agree however my point is that some people who present themselves are skeptics in a word arent. .

    Perhaps the mistake is to believe how someone presents themselves, and not listen to what they say and what they do to decide if they are a sceptic, cynic or fanatic. :-)


  • #53
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I agree however my point is that some people who present themselves are skeptics in a word arent. .

    Perhaps the mistake is to believe how someone presents themselves, and not listen to what they say and what they do to decide if they are a sceptic, cynic or fanatic. :-)

    Very true


  • #54
    Akrasia
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,597 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I am myself a skeptic but I feel the term is often misused. There are definatly skeptics who misrepresent the truth in order to debunk some claims. No doubt about it. I have one or two interests that science doesnt recognise yet and some of the arguements put forward by some skeptics have been similar to "it cant exist therefore it doesnt ect". Some skeptics also used inaccurate science to attack my theories. Skepticism is about questioning in my opinion and coming up with alternative solutions.

    Skepticism is about basing one's opinions/beliefs on the evidence, and a rigorous analysis of what constitutes good evidence.

    Skepticism is also about openness to new ideas, and willingness to change one's position if the evidence is of a high enough quality to support a different hypothesis.

    Anyone who adheres to the above criteria can legitimately consider him/herself to be a skeptic.

    If you believe something that is not widely accepted by the skeptic community, there is a chance that the wider skeptic community are involved in some kind of conspiracy or that they are all 'pseudo skeptics', but there is also the chance that you are the person who is misguided and perhaps you should take a closer look at your own beliefs.

    Ask yourself, What kind of evidence would disprove this idea? If you can not think of any evidence that could be presented that would change your belief in a phenomena, then you are clearly not a skeptic.

    You also need to be capable of assessing the evidence in favour of your belief and contrast it with the evidence that contradicts your belief. Is your supporting evidence of a high quality? Was the methodology rigorous? Are there other possible explanations for each instance of the phenomenon?

    What are the implications if your belief are true?
    What are the implications if your belief are false?

    If the implications that your belief is true are that the entire theory of gravity must be thrown out and replaced with something entirely new, then you are going to need to provide an enormous amount of supporting evidence to justify this


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Thats completely correct but unfortunately there seems to be some unwritten rules of Ridicule and prickyness along with skeptics.

    Here are some James Randhi fans commets about psychics on youtube

    http://youtu.be/UlwZWmu-bNM


    Edward and Praagh are ****ing SCUMBAGS

    markydo86 1 week ago

    Van Prague's voice is so obnoxious. I just want to punch him in his face.

    tonybony1491 3 days ago 4 pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif


    I agree, I hope James Van Prague finds himself in a very special place in hell when he dies, the kind where he faces all his lies. People should research his legal problems, he's a known con artist and thief.

    MrWirelesscaller

    WHY DOES HE SOUND LIKE A FAG LOL
    Watchingyew 5 days ago



    Van Praagh has the voice of a woman.

    1000mbr 5 days ago


  • #56
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    What kind of f*cking retard post is the above? Should we trawl through YouTube and find some ignorant comments from "paranormal believers", and post them up, for no apparent reason?

    Hold the press - there are immature goons who like James Randi, and there are immature goons who do not like him.

    Your post above served no purpose whatsoever. You just posted up a demonstration of the lack of substance in your thoughts.


  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dave! wrote: »
    What kind of f*cking retard post is the above? Should we trawl through YouTube and find some ignorant comments from "paranormal believers", and post them up, for no apparent reason?

    Hold the press - there are immature goons who like James Randi, and there are immature goons who do not like him.

    Your post above served no purpose whatsoever. You just posted up a demonstration of the lack of substance in your thoughts.



    Wow getting personal there, i didnt mean to hit a nerve, so BIG HUG.

    Its just a video by the website that i posted about in the initial thread. I thought it was funny how they say the skeptic community revert to defamatory comments and ridicule like they say.Although i have never seen in it here :pac:

    Sorry if i was generalizing the skeptic community.


  • #58
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Sorry bout that, had been on the Guinness... and Jameson... that night! :o My bad


  • #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dave! wrote: »
    Sorry bout that, had been on the Guinness... and Jameson... that night! :o My bad

    Skeptics in the bar actually sounds like a good night :)


  • #60
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Skeptics in the bar actually sounds like a good night :)

    The evidence says otherwise....


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    I missed this one.

    Im amazed that 'Zombrex' - genius that he/she is - can tell me about my belief systems. Actually .. no Im not. Once again we have a cynic who assumes he/she knows everything ... including how people theyve never met think.


    Im quite happy in the knowledge you wouldnt know a skeptic if one had a debate with you on a skeptics forum, so Im not really too worried about what you think tbh. Go away and educate yourself is my only suggestion. Oh - I have to add an edit. I dont act like a skeptic? Go off and find me one thing ove ever said, or anything Leinster Paranormal has ever done that would lead you to believe I "let personal desires cloud their judgement". You sir, are talking out of your arse.

    Can you point out the skeptical part of the Leinster Paranormal web page?

    If they are skeptical why is the web page littered with references to ghosts and other paranormal claims. Why is there even mention of the paranormal at all? Have you demonstrated these claims have enough evidence behind them to be scientifically supported? Have you demonstrated that there is supernatural events taking place? Heck, the slogan is apparently "common sense not science". Jesus Christ! The slogan might as well be "We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine" :rolleyes:


  • #62
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Can you point out the skeptical part of the Leinster Paranormal web page?

    If they are skeptical why is the web page littered with references to ghosts and other paranormal claims. Why is there even mention of the paranormal at all? Have you demonstrated these claims have enough evidence behind them to be scientifically supported? Have you demonstrated that there is supernatural events taking place? Heck, the slogan is apparently "common sense not science". Jesus Christ! The slogan might as well be "We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine" :rolleyes:

    Do you find attacking people is much use within the scientific method? I dont agree with all his claims but the day when I resort to tactics like that is the day that my argeuments become weak.


  • #63
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Do you have ANY idea of what skeptical means? I really don't think you do.

    And 'common sense not science' ... is that really so high up above your head that you dont understand it? it doesnt mean '"We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine"' ... it means use your head and stop pretending you can prove the paranormal scientifically.

    Jesus ... I really lose faith in humanity when I read some of the absolute dumb posts in here.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Can you point out the skeptical part of the Leinster Paranormal web page?

    If they are skeptical why is the web page littered with references to ghosts and other paranormal claims. Why is there even mention of the paranormal at all? Have you demonstrated these claims have enough evidence behind them to be scientifically supported? Have you demonstrated that there is supernatural events taking place? Heck, the slogan is apparently "common sense not science". Jesus Christ! The slogan might as well be "We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine" :rolleyes:


  • #64
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Do you find attacking people is much use within the scientific method? I dont agree with all his claims but the day when I resort to tactics like that is the day that my argeuments become weak.

    some people like to hear themselves if you ask me. empty vessels etc etc.


  • #65
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    maccored wrote: »
    Do you have ANY idea of what skeptical means? I really don't think you do.

    And 'common sense not science' ... is that really so high up above your head that you dont understand it? it doesnt mean '"We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine"' ... it means use your head and stop pretending you can prove the paranormal scientifically.

    Jesus ... I really lose faith in humanity when I read some of the absolute dumb posts in here.

    It means "lower the standard of evidence so that we can pretend there's something to this." There are plenty of aspects of the paranormal which are scientifically testable.


  • #66
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    like what? You can test for poltergeists and evps now Dave?

    Make up your mind ... the paranormal can be researched scientifically when it suits you it seems, and other times its all non scientific rubbish. Personally, outside of testing mediums and 'psychics' there isnt much else you can test in a lab as far as the paranormal goes so the whole idea that its a science is a bit premature. Maybe in another 60 years of research we might get that far, but not yet. Paranormal research is common sense not science.

    I avoid coming in here as its very much like debating with little kids who don't really have a notion of what they're on about. I jsut have to pop in every now and then as some of the rubbish talked is just amazing.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    maccored wrote: »
    like what? You can test for poltergeists and evps now Dave?

    ...Yes?

    If they have an effect on the physical world, then yes. That is like the stupidest thing you've said so far.

    Do you like, sit in a room and listen to someone tell you that an object wasn't where they remember leaving it and all jump up and scream: "WE CAN'T TEST IT THEREFORE WE KNOW IT WAS A GHOST!"
    No, I don't imagine you do. First you have to confirm that the objects are not being moved by something more mundane. Then the real testing begins.


  • #68
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Do you find attacking people is much use within the scientific method?

    Yes, when the people I'm attacking are spreading nonsense about what it means to be skeptical and scientific.


  • #69
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    And 'common sense not science' ... is that really so high up above your head that you dont understand it? it doesnt mean '"We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine"' ... it means use your head and stop pretending you can prove the paranormal scientifically.

    Groan ... thank you for brilliantly demonstrating my point.

    Explain how you learn anything about the paranormal using "your head" but not scientifically? All that means is that we can't find anything scientifically but we still like to pretend something exciting is going on so we simply abandon scientific principles and make it up.

    Christ it is like the Enlightenment never even happened .... what next? Well we cannot scientific demonstrate this lead will turn into gold but if we just use "common sense" I'm sure we can imagine how it might


  • #70
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes, when the people I'm attacking are spreading nonsense about what it means to be skeptical and scientific.

    Well I think part of being a skeptic is putting your case forward to the other side and trying to win them over with scientific evidence. Ill give you an example close to home. For my failings I used to find the idea of the loch ness monster credible when I was a teenager. Some people made insulting references to my intelligence and as a result I ignored them. One guy who was a keen naturalist and a skeptic calmly put his view forward. He told me that there was 26 different descriptions of nessie so the eye witness accounts could be thrown out.

    If you put you oppisition to paranormal claims forward with civility you will find many more people willing to listen I find.


  • #71
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    If you put you oppisition to paranormal claims forward with civility you will find many more people willing to listen I find.

    That doesn't sound fun at all.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dave! wrote: »
    It means "lower the standard of evidence

    Yet The skeptic community does this all the time. One example "cold reading". Its constantly thrown about the skeptic community. Yet were are the studies into cold reading, is it 100% accurate can it be done over the phone can it be done at a distance.


    Sleep Paralysis : its a theory for ghost sightings , yet science cannot explain why people have the exact same dream. They can try to explain it but its not 100%


  • #73
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    hey zombrex - how about insulting me directly for a change eh?

    Let me make a point if I can.

    The job of a skeptic isn't to try and constantly tell people the paranormal is rubbish. their job is to have enough interest in the subject to look at it objectively, regardless if the information points towards proving something or points the other way and disproves something.

    Those who are out just to ridicule and tell others they are "spreading nonsense" - WITHOUT providing any viable alternatives or indeed without trying to discuss the conversation intelligently - those people cannot pretend to be skeptics as they are obviously very cynical about whatever the subject is.

    i find this sub-forum to be an embarrassment for those with a skeptical slant, considering many posters here are obviously extremely cynical about the paranormal. yet they don't, no matter how it is explained to them, seem to comprehend this subtle difference between being cynical and skeptical.


  • #74
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    the groaning is all on my part, believe me. Go talk to a research scientist. Ask them if research starts with A) them knowing all the facts, or B) if it starts with an idea that they then need to go find all the facts for. You'll normally find it is B. Paranormal research is presently at B as indepth, proper research hasnt begun properly yet - though there are people trying to figure out how to do that.

    Plus - wtf are your talking about gold etc? It is true what they say about common sense .... it's not very common. I learned that from reading your posts.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Groan ... thank you for brilliantly demonstrating my point.

    Explain how you learn anything about the paranormal using "your head" but not scientifically? All that means is that we can't find anything scientifically but we still like to pretend something exciting is going on so we simply abandon scientific principles and make it up.

    Christ it is like the Enlightenment never even happened .... what next? Well we cannot scientific demonstrate this lead will turn into gold but if we just use "common sense" I'm sure we can imagine how it might


  • #75
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Excuse me .... do you purposely not understand my posts or do I really have to dumb things down for you?

    Dave claims the paranormal can be researched scientifically. I say at present it can't, considering we cant scientifically research EVPS yet (as just one example).

    The reason why we cant is we cant properly examine the environment (certainly not at a cost the average researcher can afford anyway). If you say we can, then please explain how.

    If you can find cheap multisensors and if you can outline the various environmental factors that may cause EVPs (I am assuming you have heard proper evps and not the usual 'i moved, I made a noise and now its a ghost' type ones) then please, tell me how as I cant find cost effective multisensors and I only know of some of the environmental factors that can cause evps. if we knew all the ranges and had the gear THEN we might be able to have a stab at some form of scientific research into evps.

    You could say EVPs are never unexplainable, and if you do then I say you just havent heard any proper ones yet. Then again, if you dont research and just play internet smartarse, then I suppose you mightn't have.

    So PLEASE explain whatever point you were trying to make as I dont know what the hell you're on about.

    plus - where the blue **** have I ever suggested the following?
    "WE CAN'T TEST IT THEREFORE WE KNOW IT WAS A GHOST!"

    If you dont have an argument then fine ... but stop trying to invent one on my behalf please.


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    ...Yes?

    If they have an effect on the physical world, then yes. That is like the stupidest thing you've said so far.

    Do you like, sit in a room and listen to someone tell you that an object wasn't where they remember leaving it and all jump up and scream: "WE CAN'T TEST IT THEREFORE WE KNOW IT WAS A GHOST!"
    No, I don't imagine you do. First you have to confirm that the objects are not being moved by something more mundane. Then the real testing begins.


  • #76
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    skeptical and scientific?

    Ive been saying paranormal research ISNT scientific.

    Are you trying to tell me that it is, or where are you going with the '...and scientific' bit?

    Make up your mind (like Dave, you seem to be suggesting two opposite things here).
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes, when the people I'm attacking are spreading nonsense about what it means to be skeptical and scientific.


  • #77
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Can you point out the skeptical part of the Leinster Paranormal web page? If they are skeptical why is the web page littered with references to ghosts and other paranormal claims. Why is there even mention of the paranormal at all?

    I think you are looking for the CYNICAL viewpoints on the paranormal going by that description. We are skeptical ... not cynical. You really, really should man up and learn the difference.
    Have you demonstrated these claims have enough evidence behind them to be scientifically supported? Have you demonstrated that there is supernatural events taking place?

    Considering we are saying these things CANNOT YET be scientifically supported i think your questions are a bit premature. Would we LIKE to be able to use science in this research? Of course ... but we cant yet as paranormal research is not that far developed.
    Heck, the slogan is apparently "common sense not science". Jesus Christ! The slogan might as well be "We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine" rolleyes.gif

    Incorrect, but it does point out you genuinely dont seem to have any idea what Leinster Paranormal stands for or tries to do. Well done there.


  • #78
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I really wish you could consolidate your ramblings to a single post rather than 6 seperate ones...

    For a good example, what about the Bem research on ESP that was published recently maccored? You were the one that posted it up on Boards. It was a pretty cleverly designed scientific test of something "paranormal". There ended up being serious questions raised about the methods used, and it hasn't yet been replicated AFAIK (several attempts have failed), but it was a good example of scientific testing, right? If there were an effect, it should be detectable through the methods described.


  • #79
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Are you telling me Ive been ranting about how real and true ESP is? I cant remember the thread you mean, but I assume I was doing the role of a skeptic and posting up scientific research that could be debated.

    You're telling me thats an example of me being whatever it was you claimed I was being in your last post the other thread? Really, please have an argument to argue next time as I think you've just proved my point.


  • #80
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Dave! wrote: »
    I really wish you could consolidate your ramblings to a single post rather than 6 seperate ones..

    And Dave, stop the girly bitching just because you cant seem to give me a decent answer on anything so far Ive asked you about.


  • #81
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    maccored wrote: »
    Are you telling me Ive been ranting about how real and true ESP is? I cant remember the thread you mean, but I assume I was doing the role of a skeptic and posting up scientific research that could be debated.

    You're telling me thats an example of me being whatever it was you claimed I was being in your last post the other thread? Really, please have an argument to argue next time as I think you've just proved my point.

    err, no, you said the paranormal could not be studied scientifically, and I referred to you the Bem study which you in fact posted on Boards before, and which you said you were going to put on your Journal of Paranormal Research. I have no idea what your thoughts are on ESP, nor do I care.

    This stemmed from your slogan for Leinster Paranormal boasting about being about "common sense, not science". Bem is a good example of someone using science to study the paranormal.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    You obviously forgot about the fact the experiment couldnt be repeated etc etc. secondly, esp is not the paranormal. its a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny bit of whats called 'the paranormal'. Science may be able to look at some small parts to a degree, but you cant apply that to all areas of the paranormal ... of even the more common ones like apparitions, evps etc etc.

    Plus I see you still cant get your head around the 'its common sense not science' ..and considering it is in reference to the paranormal AND that you disagree with me, then I assume you are telling me the paranormal is now scientific are you?
    Dave! wrote: »
    err, no, you said the paranormal could not be studied scientifically, and I referred to you the Bem study which you in fact posted on Boards before, and which you said you were going to put on your Journal of Paranormal Research. I have no idea what your thoughts are on ESP, nor do I care.

    This stemmed from your slogan for Leinster Paranormal boasting about being about "common sense, not science". Bem is a good example of someone using science to study the paranormal.


  • #83
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    maccored wrote: »
    ..and considering it is in reference to the paranormal AND that you disagree with me, then I assume you are telling me the paranormal is now scientific are you?

    I want you to answer that Dave


  • #84
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jesus, you're insufferable...
    maccored wrote: »
    You obviously forgot about the fact the experiment couldnt be repeated etc etc.

    Did I now? See:
    Dave! wrote: »
    For a good example, what about the Bem research on ESP that was published recently maccored? You were the one that posted it up on Boards. It was a pretty cleverly designed scientific test of something "paranormal". There ended up being serious questions raised about the methods used, and it hasn't yet been replicated AFAIK (several attempts have failed), but it was a good example of scientific testing, right? If there were an effect, it should be detectable through the methods described.

    So I in fact did not forget about that, did I? In fact I pointed it out in my first post on the topic.

    What does that have to do with it being science or not? Lots of experiments with positive effects fail to be subsequently replicated. That doesn't mean anything, assuming the actual experiment is sound. It just indicates that there were flaws or bias in the researcher's execution. It was pretty widely lauded and considered a well designed study, by skeptics and scientists at large. It was published in a respected scientific publication too, after passing peer review.

    So please expand on your point - the positive effects could not be reproduced, which indicates that there is no effect. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the design of the experiment.

    Sounds like you're trying to distance yourself from it because the results didn't hold up.
    maccored wrote: »
    secondly, esp is not the paranormal. its a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny bit of whats called 'the paranormal'. Science may be able to look at some small parts to a degree, but you cant apply that to all areas of the paranormal ... of even the more common ones like apparitions, evps etc etc.

    1. You're presenting a strawman, because nobody (certainly I never) said that all areas of the paranormal could be studied.

    2. So you're directly contradicting your previous post:
    Dave claims the paranormal can be researched scientifically. I say at present it can't, considering we cant scientifically research EVPS yet (as just one example).

    Good to know.
    maccored wrote: »
    Plus I see you still cant get your head around the 'its common sense not science' ..and considering it is in reference to the paranormal AND that you disagree with me, then I assume you are telling me the paranormal is now scientific are you?

    I'm saying what I've said before - aspects of the paranormal can be studied scientifically. Whether or not "paranormal investigators" actually use scientific methods in their "research" is another matter entirely.

    AFAIK Daryl Bem is considered a pretty respected researcher, and he used good methods to test an aspect of the paranormal, and appears to have come up empty-handed.


  • #85
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Dave! wrote: »
    Jesus, you're insufferable...



    Did I now? See:



    So I in fact did not forget about that, did I? In fact I pointed it out in my first post on the topic.

    Glad you remembered. Plus ... my name isnt Jesus. I just wondered considering you were trying to tell me it was proof of proper scientific research into the paranormal. Obviously not considering it hasnt been replicated. Either you were wrong on quoted post, or you were wrong on the one I replied to. Has to be one or the other since you've been making two opposite, contradictory points.
    What does that have to do with it being science or not? Lots of experiments with positive effects fail to be subsequently replicated. That doesn't mean anything, assuming the actual experiment is sound. It just indicates that there were flaws or bias in the researcher's execution. It was pretty widely lauded and considered a well designed study, by skeptics and scientists at large. It was published in a respected scientific publication too, after passing peer review.

    A peer reviewed article is now scientific research in your book. nice one.
    So please expand on your point - the positive effects could not be reproduced, which indicates that there is no effect. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the design of the experiment.

    except it cant be repeated. the scientific method expects things to be repeatable.
    Sounds like you're trying to distance yourself from it because the results didn't hold up.

    Nope - it sounds like you've been caught in your own waffle again Dave.


    1. You're presenting a strawman, because nobody (certainly I never) said that all areas of the paranormal could be studied.

    You told me the paranormal was scientifically researchable. Now you;re saying you didnt. As I already said, make up your mind.
    2. So you're directly contradicting your previous post:

    There is NO definitive, conclusive scientific research on ESP. Doesnt mean there wont be, and it has to be said, most paranormal researchers arent looking at esp much any more as theres already enough people studying it. The fact remains though, you cant say paranormal research is scientific just because people have been looking at ESP.


    Good to know.
    Its a pity you dont know more on the subject.


    I'm saying what I've said before - aspects of the paranormal can be studied scientifically. Whether or not "paranormal investigators" actually use scientific methods in their "research" is another matter entirely.

    Aspects of the paranormal can be scientifically researched? Like what? How? Dont mention mediums, psychics or ESP as theres lots of inconclusive experimentation been done there.

    Dave, you are once more waffling.
    AFAIK Daryl Bem is considered a pretty respected researcher, and he used good methods to test an aspect of the paranormal, and appears to have come up empty-handed.

    So one person you heard of has looked a bit at the paranormal and according to you scientifically that proves any paranormal claims arent true? 1) You cynic. 2) How can you say that with a straight face and call yourself a skeptic?

    You've probably never heard of David Rountree, but then again you wouldnt be interested in someone who takes the paranormal seriously and at the same time is trying to scientifically study it. He is one a very very few that are trying to find a way to scientifically study the paranormal.


  • #86
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    maccored wrote: »
    I want you to answer that Dave

    i STILL want a proper answer on that Dave. Are you telling me paranormal research is scientific, considering you dont believe common sense has anything to do with it?


  • #87
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Yeah, not interested in going any further with you on this. I do often try to devote a bit of effort to responding to moronic posts for the sake of convincing observers who are undecided, or those who have taken a position but are open to persuasion or argument.

    However sometimes it's just not worth engaging with a particular person, so I'll just have to have faith that any intelligent observer can understand my posts and can see how disingenuous maccored is, as evidenced perfectly by his post above re: reproducing experiment results. I don't believe that maccored is dumb enough to not understand why his post above is so silly, so I'm going to assume he's engaged in sophistry.


  • #88
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Way to go Dave, insinuate people are morons. I do believe that leaves the correct impression of you.

    Good luck and its a pity that you couldnt back up your claims with some proper debate or argument rather than making sweeping, generalised statements that you later find you can't define. Then again, we are in the Skeptics forum of which you are (were?) the mod (or at some stage suggested - personally i dont really care enough to know for sure). 1 + 1 indeeds makes 2 in such circumstances.
    Dave! wrote: »
    Yeah, not interested in going any further with you on this. I do often try to devote a bit of effort to responding to moronic posts for the sake of convincing observers who are undecided, or those who have taken a position but are open to persuasion or argument.

    However sometimes it's just not worth engaging with a particular person, so I'll just have to have faith that any intelligent observer can understand my posts and can see how disingenuous maccored is, as evidenced perfectly by his post above re: reproducing experiment results. I don't believe that maccored is dumb enough to not understand why his post above is so silly, so I'm going to assume he's engaged in sophistry.


  • #89
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    skeptical and scientific?

    Ive been saying paranormal research ISNT scientific.

    Yes that is precisely the point. Yet you still seem to think that you are some how still a skeptic by carrying on regardless. The basic point you are spectacularly not understanding is that if you were actually a skeptic this would matter to you a great deal, you wouldn't brush it off as if this is some minor inconvenience, oh its not scientific but not to worry, we'll just use are common sense instead. Because that worked so well for the last 5 thousand years before human's developed the philosophy of science, just ask the people who used to think everything was made up for fire water and air. :rolleyes:

    If you were actually a skeptic (or even knew what that meant) you wouldn't believe nonsense that despite paranormal "research" not being in anyway scientific it still had use in terms of gathering accurate knowledge about the universe by using "common sense" instead of a proper methodology.

    The idea that anyone could be seriously research the paranormal using some methodology as ridiculous unreliable as human common sense demonstrates not only are they not a skeptic but they don't even understand what that means in the first place.

    They haven't invented an emoticon to express how face palming your posts about skepticism are. You don't have the first clue what that term actually means, or the rational behind it.


  • #90
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    The job of a skeptic isn't to try and constantly tell people the paranormal is rubbish.

    Yes actually that is the job of a skeptic since by your own admission there has never been a single paranormal claim verified by scientific methodology (just "common sense" apparently)

    So please explain to me what exactly the paranormal is? Or to put it another way how does anyone know that any of these claims are in anyway even para-normal. Given that this has not been demonstrated why is anyone even using the term in the first place?

    The whole problem with even mentioning the term paranormal is that it is a conclusion coming before anything to support that conclusion (which is the exact opposite of skepticism). And this is before we get to using terms like "ghosts" to describe events.

    If you were genuinely a skeptic you would throw out every single paranormal claim that so far has not been verified to actually explain a natural phenomena. There would not be a single mention of ESP, ghosts, hauntings or even the term "paranormal" on sites such as Leinster Paranormal. None of these terms mean anything from a scientific point of view, they are purely imagination.

    You will notice that when actual scientists start researching something unknown they do not make up some claim to fill in the blanks. It is an unexplained phenomena until it is known, it is not "paranormal", it is not a "ghost" or an "orb" or a "haunted castle". They don't start off trying to show it isn't some supernatural event and then work backwards.

    Replace every single reference to a paranormal explanation on the Leinster Paranormal web site with simple "unexplained phenomena", then get back to me about being an actual skeptic. Though of course the website will be a lot more boring, but then real skepticism is


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Groan ... thank you for brilliantly demonstrating my point.

    Explain how you learn anything about the paranormal using "your head" but not scientifically? All that means is that we can't find anything scientifically but we still like to pretend something exciting is going on so we simply abandon scientific principles and make it up.

    Christ it is like the Enlightenment never even happened .... what next? Well we cannot scientific demonstrate this lead will turn into gold but if we just use "common sense" I'm sure we can imagine how it might

    It's 'knowing' or 'feeling'. I 'know/feel' this is true...'. 'I feel a presence...'. If you believe something is true then, in paranormal circles, that's good enough, also known as this


  • #92
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    kylith wrote: »
    also known as this


    I love this as its completely true, and if you reverse it you get the skeptic side.


  • #93
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    kylith wrote: »
    It's 'knowing' or 'feeling'. I 'know/feel' this is true...'. 'I feel a presence...'. If you believe something is true then, in paranormal circles, that's good enough, also known as this

    I have to say I love the way everyone around here knows everyone and everything (considering Zombrex was talking about me) yet heads are so firmly up arses Im surprised any of ye's can see where yer going..

    Pity though theres no link between common sense and that link kylith posted.

    Im amazed though so many brainiacs on here think paranormal research is science based all the same ..... considering its apparently a no no to use common sense .


  • #94
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    So hang on ... to be sceptical about something you have to be a scientist. Man, you are pure genius you are. Its no wonder you dont know what skeptic means.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes that is precisely the point. Yet you still seem to think that you are some how still a skeptic by carrying on regardless. The basic point you are spectacularly not understanding is that if you were actually a skeptic this would matter to you a great deal, you wouldn't brush it off as if this is some minor inconvenience, oh its not scientific but not to worry, we'll just use are common sense instead. Because that worked so well for the last 5 thousand years before human's developed the philosophy of science, just ask the people who used to think everything was made up for fire water and air. :rolleyes:

    If you were actually a skeptic (or even knew what that meant) you wouldn't believe nonsense that despite paranormal "research" not being in anyway scientific it still had use in terms of gathering accurate knowledge about the universe by using "common sense" instead of a proper methodology.
    (heres a hint - there is no methodology so far for paranormal research ... you might know that if you bothered getting out into the field and doing something bar trying to educate us 'morons' on the internet)
    The idea that anyone could be seriously research the paranormal using some methodology as ridiculous unreliable as human common sense demonstrates not only are they not a skeptic but they don't even understand what that means in the first place.

    That is comedy gold that is. Hey world - dont use common sense! Yeah, very smart. You are a genius sir.
    They haven't invented an emoticon to express how face palming your posts about skepticism are. You don't have the first clue what that term actually means, or the rational behind it.
    This is the part I agree with - in reference to yourself of course.


  • #95
    maccored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite:
    Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

    Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

    As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm.

    I think that is a fitting quote as it comes from the site being discussed and it accurately described a poster or two in this thread.


  • #96
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    maccored wrote: »
    Excuse me .... do you purposely not understand my posts or do I really have to dumb things down for you?
    Seems upset when Zombrex appears to insult him.
    Appears to insult other poster.
    maccored wrote: »
    Dave claims the paranormal can be researched scientifically. I say at present it can't, considering we cant scientifically research EVPS yet (as just one example).

    The reason why we cant is we cant properly examine the environment (certainly not at a cost the average researcher can afford anyway). If you say we can, then please explain how.

    If you can find cheap multisensors and if you can outline the various environmental factors that may cause EVPs (I am assuming you have heard proper evps and not the usual 'i moved, I made a noise and now its a ghost' type ones) then please, tell me how as I cant find cost effective multisensors and I only know of some of the environmental factors that can cause evps. if we knew all the ranges and had the gear THEN we might be able to have a stab at some form of scientific research into evps.

    You could say EVPs are never unexplainable, and if you do then I say you just havent heard any proper ones yet. Then again, if you dont research and just play internet smartarse, then I suppose you mightn't have.

    So PLEASE explain whatever point you were trying to make as I dont know what the hell you're on about.

    My point is "If they have an effect on the physical world, then yes[ we can test for them]."

    The initial tests don't even have to involve expensive recording equipment.
    Take one 'real' EVP and one fake, artificially generated one. The real one was taken after a simple question was asked, like; What is your name?"
    Then tell 50 people that the recording was taken after that question was asked and let them listen to either the real or the fake one and see what answers they come up with.

    This test would show a difference between real EVPs and just background noise being wrongly interpreted. If you can't get a definite trend towards the real EVP then there is no point continuing.
    maccored wrote: »
    plus - where the blue **** have I ever suggested the following?

    You didn't, as far as I can see. You are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts but then you don't read ours. Check the line after that bit you quoted, it says:
    No, I don't imagine you do.

    See?
    maccored wrote: »
    If you dont have an argument then fine ... but stop trying to invent one on my behalf please.

    I think you are doing just fine destroying your credibility on your own.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Standman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    I'm just a bit confused as to why some people think a "paranormal" description of an event warrants even a consideration in the first place.


  • #98
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    So hang on ... to be sceptical about something you have to be a scientist.

    No, to be a skeptic you have understand the principles of science and appreciate why they matter. If you simply ignore them because its too boring or not fun enough (or because you simply don't have a clue what they are), and instead rely on the utterly unreliable assessment of "common sense", which is basically just another name for guessing, then you are not in any way being a skeptic.
    maccored wrote: »
    (heres a hint - there is no methodology so far for paranormal research ... you might know that if you bothered getting out into the field and doing something bar trying to educate us 'morons' on the internet)
    Ah, brilliant.

    Explain to me maccored what I would "do" in the field of paranormal research when there isn't a methodology to use ...

    Of course there is a methodology, it is called guessing and making sh*t up (or as you put it "common sense"). The problem is you don't seem to grasp why that is a bad methodology to use and why you shouldn't use it and why using it makes you the opposite of a skeptic.
    maccored wrote: »
    That is comedy gold that is. Hey world - dont use common sense! Yeah, very smart. You are a genius sir.

    Dear lord. :rolleyes:

    Let me hand this over a man who put it better than me

    Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen.
    Albert Einstein


  • #99
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    FYI - another attempt to scientifically test for paranormal abilities (a replication attempt of Daryl Bem's Psi research) fails:

    Correcting the Past: Failures to Replicate Psi


  • #100
    Rob Humanoid
    Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭Rob Humanoid


    I'd have to admit that I'm a bit of 'skeptic/cynic'. I honestly think, that it's quite hard to remain totally objective given the huge amount of deliberate misinformation and commercialism within the paranormal community.

    That, for me anyway, tends to drown out the other more genuine people - Not that I'd believe them anyway, as I don't believe in psychic phenomena, etc.

    But as long as there's plenty of 'proper skeptics' out there, we should be alright. I like Brain Dunning's take on it...


  • #101
    SteedBurger
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4 ✭SteedBurger


    There must be a paranormal reason why everyone here is using the American spelling of sceptic?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement