[bigeasyeah]

Originally Posted by MonkeyBalls

I suggest you read it again. "The" is perfectly correct.

The Mod asked us to stop discussing your incorrect use of language.Repeating a statement doesnt vindicate it.

[MonkeyBalls]

Originally Posted by bigeasyeah

The Mod asked us to stop discussing your incorrect use of language.Repeating a statement doesnt vindicate it.

Oh dear.
It must upset you being wrong all the time.

[Nick_oliveri]

STFU already guys.Ye are proving nothing.

[MrMojoRisin]

Originally Posted by MonkeyBalls

Oh dear.
It must upset you being wrong all the time.

For sh it sake like. Keyboard kindergarten here.

RE: The irrepressible Susan Blackmore. Well, a weed-fuelled return journey away with the bloody fairies over her own body hardly counts as a 'paranormal' experience. Fair dues to her getting stuck into all the branches of the paranormal for a few years or what have you, but she seemed naive and easily deluded to begin with anyway. There was obviously something badly askew in her psychological make-up in the first place for her to become so obsessively (and evidently) fixated on the paranormal to the eventual detriment of her academic progression, or whatever else.

Saddo.

[Oryx]

I think the Susan Blackmore case shows how absolutely convincing personal experiences can be. Whether the experiences she had were solely down to drugs or not, they were strong enough for her to be convinced and to research the paranormal for many years, when she could have followed an interest in all manner of other things. I dont think such research was wasted, at least you can point to anything she got a null result on and say, there, thats evidence against such things.

I think 'negative' research at least removes a layer of bs that scammers hide behind, and as such is not a waste of time. In the same way that the work of Ben Goldacre and Bruce M Hood is not wasted. It demonstrates how the human brain works and how we can be fooled by it.

It does paranormal research no favours if people are unaware of how they can be mistaken in their interpretation of experiences.

[SkepticOne]

Originally Posted by MrMojoRisin

For sh it sake like. Keyboard kindergarten here.

RE: The irrepressible Susan Blackmore. Well, a weed-fuelled return journey away with the bloody fairies over her own body hardly counts as a 'paranormal' experience. Fair dues to her getting stuck into all the branches of the paranormal for a few years or what have you, but she seemed naive and easily deluded to begin with anyway.

Except that she isn't claiming it was paranormal. She freely admits it was just the mind playing tricks. The point of the piece is that through investigating it she was able to get over her initial delusion. As such it doesn't really matter that drugs brought about the state of mind where she thought she was astrally traveling.

There was obviously something badly askew in her psychological make-up in the first place for her to become so obsessively (and evidently) fixated on the paranormal to the eventual detriment of her academic progression, or whatever else.

Saddo.

That makes her sound as if she has failed in life, whereas in reality she is quite successful. She made a living investigating the paranormal but realised it was a sham. Now she makes a living researching other aspects of the mind e.g.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/su...and_temes.html

[MrMojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

Except that she isn't claiming it was paranormal. She freely admits it was just the mind playing tricks. The point of the piece is that through investigating it she was able to get over her initial delusion. As such it doesn't really matter that drugs brought about the state of mind where she thought she was astrally traveling.

That's all very lovely and touching. Most intelligent people (who weren't arsing around with drugs to the point where they believed they were astral-travelling ) also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them. You'd know that by speaking to people in depth and face-to-face, of course.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

That makes her sound as if she has failed in life, whereas in reality she is quite successful. She made a living investigating the paranormal but realised it was a sham. Now she makes a living researching other aspects of the mind.

It can sound whatever it sounds like. The woman stated herself in that article that she neglected to avail of further academic avenues of opportunity as a result of her paranormal fixation at the time. Or, wait, will will I just smile broadly and clap my hands in celebration of that?

[SkepticOne]

Originally Posted by MrMojoRisin

That's all very lovely and touching. Most intelligent people (who weren't arsing around with drugs to the point where they believed they were astral-travelling ) also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them. You'd know that by speaking to people in depth and face-to-face, of course.

Most people who believe they astral travel (without the use of drugs) have scientifically investigated their belief?

[MrMojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

Most people who believe they astral travel (without the use of drugs) have scientifically investigated their belief?

You inserted that word - not me. In any case, I'd say you'll have to find those alleged astral travellers and ask them that yourself.

[SkepticOne]

Originally Posted by MrMojoRisin

You inserted that word - not me. In any case, I'd say you'll have to find those alleged astral travellers and ask them that yourself.

Well, from the context of the thread I would have though it was fairly clear we're talking about scientific investigation of paranormal claims. What type of investigation were you thinking of?

[MrMojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

Well, from the context of the thread I would have though it was fairly clear we're talking about scientific investigation of paranormal claims. What type of investigation were you thinking of?

That's your grievance - not mine.

[SkepticOne]

Originally Posted by MrMojoRisin

That's your grievance - not mine.

My grievance? I am merely enquiring as to what you meant by "most people [...] also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them."

If it is not scientific investigation then what sort are you talking about?

[MrMojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

My grievance? I am merely enquiring as to what you meant by "most people [...] also go to the trouble of questioning and investigating an unusual incident that has happened to them."

If it is not scientific investigation then what sort are you talking about?

God. This cream is crap - that haemorrhoid won't go away.

I'm probably pointing out the stupidly obvious here now, but I think it would be worthwhile to take into account that not every single human being who has what they would term a 'paranormal' experience has the background, or even the means, to investigate their experience scientifically.

A bit of common sense and a rational evaluation of different factors, with a propensity for secondary research, are perfectly sufficient to make up a person's own mind about anything unusual that may have occurred in their lives. Thousands of people who have experienced something they believed to be paranormal are not fixated on 'proving' it to individuals whose minds closed for business many moons ago, or in having any of it revealed publicly in a scientific journal.

A person does not need to waste time and money on years of subsequent research following an 'out-of-body experience' where they had smoked too much weed. Some of the brightest academics are sorely deficient in good, old-fashioned common sense - a failing aptly illustrated by Susan Blackmore's story, amongst many others of her ilk.

[SkepticOne]

Originally Posted by MrMojoRisin

God. This cream is crap - that haemorrhoid won't go away.

An unusually hostile and abusive response to fairly polite questioning of your assertions. All I'm trying to do is find out whether or not the sort of investigations you claim people are carrying out is worth taking seriously.

I'm probably pointing out the stupidly obvious here now, but I think it would be worthwhile to take into account that not every single human being who has what they would term a 'paranormal' experience has the background, or even the means, to investigate their experience scientifically.

No one is claiming that. What I want to know is whether a significant number who believe in the paranormal investigate their experiences in a reasonably rigorous way.

A bit of common sense and a rational evaluation of different factors, with a propensity for secondary research, are perfectly sufficient to make up a person's own mind about anything unusual that may have occurred in their lives. Thousands of people who have experienced something they believed to be paranormal are not fixated on 'proving' it to individuals whose minds closed for business many moons ago, or in having any of it revealed publicly in a scientific journal.

But there needs to be some sort of evaluation by others who may not hold the convictions of the person with the beliefs and where the methodology can be criticised. I'm sure most of these thousands of people you claim to have knowledge of do a bit of reading about their experiences but would that count as rigorous critical evaluation?

A person does not need to waste time and money on years of subsequent research following an 'out-of-body experience' where they had smoked too much weed. Some of the brightest academics are sorely deficient in good, old-fashioned common sense - a failing aptly illustrated by Susan Blackmore's story, amongst many others of her ilk.

This is a strange point you are making here. You are putting all your focus on the initial experience that kicked off her interest in the paranormal. It just happens to have been caused by too much weed, but it could easily have happened through some other means, perhaps simply reading about the subject. How does here initial motivation invalidate years of negative findings when paranormal phenomena are subjected to scientific scrutiny?

[MrMojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

An unusually hostile and abusive response to fairly polite questioning of your assertions. All I'm trying to do is find out whether or not the sort of investigations you claim people are carrying out is worth taking seriously.

Everything in moderation, including moderation itself.

Okay, now go and find that out then. Talk to people in real life.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

No one is claiming that. What I want to know is whether a significant number who believe in the paranormal investigate their experiences in a reasonably rigorous way.

The only way you'd know that for certain is by meeting all of those people and asking them.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

I'm sure most of these thousands of people you claim to have knowledge of do a bit of reading about their experiences but would that count as rigorous critical evaluation?

These thousands of people I claim to have knowledge of, huh? If you were to tot up the number of people globally who have had what they understood to be a paranormal experience, I bet my life on it that it would indeed amount to thousands. F uck Ireland. Ireland is a dot.

Whether or not people's personal investigative methods would count as rigorous critical evaluation would depend on the individual, and they would also vary from person to person. But, as I said, a bit of common sense and realism help an awful lot.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

But there needs to be some sort of evaluation by others who may not hold the convictions of the person with the beliefs and where the methodology can be criticised.

Yes, that is true, but you're forgetting that not everybody who has had an alleged paranormal experience was a 'believer' to start with. I've met several people who didn't hold beliefs in the afterlife, 'ghosts', God, etc, prior to having what they understood to be paranormal experiences. My own sister has had verifiable premonitions (verifiable by friends and family whom she informed before those events took place, that is), and she didn't believe in anything paranormal beforehand. She still doesn't believe in the paranormal, in spite of what she has experienced. All she accepts is that she is unable to explain how she 'foresaw' events in detail that happened later. "A lucky fluke", she said. That's seven "lucky flukes" of hers to date then.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

This is a strange point you are making here. You are putting all your focus on the initial experience that kicked off her interest in the paranormal.

I can put all of my focus anywhere I damn like.

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

It just happens to have been caused by too much weed, but it could easily have happened through some other means, perhaps simply reading about the subject.

Lmao!

Originally Posted by SkepticOne

How does here initial motivation invalidate years of negative findings when paranormal phenomena are subjected to scientific scrutiny?

I never said the initial motivation managed to invalidate years of her negative findings. I just think she's a f uckin eejit in general. I can't take someone seriously if they experienced what she experienced and came to some infantile and seriously unfounded conclusion about its nature. Come on, I take it she was an adult when that weird weed trip occurred? A young teenager would have more sense than she did.

I also can't take someone seriously when they adopt this tunnel vision for a project to the exclusion of all other aspects of normal life for decades. That's tapped.