Guidelines for skeptics

keu

I think its neccesary to put in place some guidelines for the arguments put forward by skeptics trying to debunk this forum.

This article rebuts the most common arguments made by skeptics regarding psychic phenomena and the paranormal, and shows the flaws and limitations in their thinking and methodology. I've listed their common arguments one by one and pointed out the problems in them based on years of experience in debating and discussing with them. Skeptics who use these arguments include honest doubters, cynics, debunkers, Atheists, Humanists, certain scientists bent on materialistic reductionist world views, those for whom science is their God (even though they won't admit it), scientific materialists, haters of religion, etc. With the exception of sensational pro-paranormal programs, these skeptics are often given the chance to present their arguments and explanations in the media, national magazines, and certain television programs, without rebuttal from the other side, even when their explanations contradict the facts of the case. As a result, there is often an imbalance in the presentation of paranormal and psychic phenomena in the media, leaving most viewers uninformed. This article attempts to counteract the imbalance by providing sensible reasons, arguments and facts that most skeptics fail to consider. It is written both for the education and knowledge of the believer who deals with skeptics, and for skeptics who are willing to hear counterarguments to their positions.

If your comming here to debunk, bring some informed material to argue your case. As far as I am concerned "I don't believe" isn't good enough.
sticky?

stormkeeper

I agree. You can't come here and disagree for the sake of disagreeing. That shows plain incompetence in my opinion. You must have sufficient proof to make us believers and fence-sitters understand your way of thinking.

satori

To speak openly honest i have to admit that i do have a strong spiritual background and do veiw things from this piont of veiw, but in saying this i dont follow things blindly because they seem to fall into the paragraph of belifes and the after life. etc.

I think the piont of veiw of a sceptic is just as valid as a beliver, souly because its there piont of veiw... regardless how they came to it or why they hold it i personaly feel that its there's and they shoulkd express that freely...

And in saying that i have to admit that some people out there go a little to far to pass there piont of veiw, be it for or against...

As long as we remain open to both sides of the aurgument (which it seems most people do on here... which is quiet rare dont you think) we leave ourselves open to the truth... which its all about!

Thanks for listening

Satori

MeatProduct

Originally posted by satori
To speak openly honest i have to admit that i do have a strong spiritual background and do veiw things from this piont of veiw, but in saying this i dont follow things blindly because they seem to fall into the paragraph of belifes and the after life. etc.

I think the piont of veiw of a sceptic is just as valid as a beliver, souly because its there piont of veiw... regardless how they came to it or why they hold it i personaly feel that its there's and they shoulkd express that freely...

And in saying that i have to admit that some people out there go a little to far to pass there piont of veiw, be it for or against...

As long as we remain open to both sides of the aurgument (which it seems most people do on here... which is quiet rare dont you think) we leave ourselves open to the truth... which its all about!

Thanks for listening

Satori

Well put Satori. People could do with being a lot more open to eachother.

Nick

keu

I think that was the point of posting the guidelines, everybody should have the right to speak freely about how they choose to perceive reality, but for debating sake there there has to be valid points for dispute..
I don't blindly believe in the paranormal, personal experience has validated areas which cannot be explained scientifically, but when someone denies my experience as an illusion, I would like some facts to support why they believe that my experience is not valid, as oppose to just "not believing".

for instance..

Argument # 1: "It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven."

This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments. As Dr. Melvin Morse, Seattle pediatrician and author specializing in child NDE‚s (Near Death Experiences)

By "proven" skeptics mean proven according to the scientific method, which they consider to be the only reliable method. There are several problems with this argument:

1) First of all, just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered. Bacteria and germs would never have caused illnesses until they were proven and discovered, smoking would not cause cancer until it was proven, the planet Pluto would not have existed until it was discovered, etc. Anyone knows that this simply is not so. For instance, when Acupuncture was first introduced in the West, skeptics and certain scientists claimed that it had no basis and only worked due to the placebo effect because they couldn‚t understand how it worked. This reflected the typical false thinking of skeptics that anything they don‚t understand must be due to superstition or chance. However, practitioners and believers knew otherwise and were later validated by extensive studies have been done to show that it indeed does work for treating various ailments and getting results which placebos can‚t account for. An extensive listing of these research studies can be found on the Med lab website. In fact, the AMA (American Medical Association) has already declared that Acupuncture works and is an effective treatment, proving the skeptics wrong. The point is that Acupuncture worked before it was proven to work, not after.
2) Second, just because something hasn't been proven to established science doesn't mean that it hasn't been proved firsthand to certain people. Established views are not the dictum of all reality. Many types of paranormal phenomena have been proved firsthand to eyewitnesses and experiencers. For example, even though the cases of NDE‚s don't prove the existence of an afterlife (at least not yet), those who have experienced them claim that the experience of the separation of body and spirit is firsthand proof to them of an afterlife, just as riding in a car is firsthand proof that cars exist, and they fear death no more. Those who have OBE‚s (Out of Body Experiences) also make similar claims, and they need no proof nor do they need to convince anyone. These claims are further supported by the fact that in many documented cases the subject could hear conversations or see things in other rooms and other places, which are later confirmed and verified to be remarkably accurate. Who's to say that they're wrong just because we haven't had the same experiences? That would be equivalent to saying that because I‚ve never been to Japan, everyone else who claims to have been there is mistaken or deluded. The same goes for eyewitnesses of ghosts, UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects), alien abductions, Bigfoot, etc. These sightings and encounters range from the obscure and distant to ones that are crystal clear and at point-blank-range, making them much harder to dismiss.

3) Third, many research experiments and studies conducted under the scientific method HAVE passed with positive results. For example, experiments in micro-psychokinesis done by Dr. Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunn at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research labs (PEAR) using random generator machines to measure subjects‚ PK influence on them, obtained positive consistent results for over 20 years. These were done under proper controls and scientific procedures, even according to prominent skeptic Ray Hyman, who investigated the Prince experiments in person and conceded that he could find no flaws in the methodology. The small but consistent results achieved by PEAR over 20 years are calculated by chance alone to be 1 in 1035. (For more on PEAR, see their website at www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html). Likewise, the Ganzfeld experiments in telepathy done in the early 70‚s also had repeated success, with receivers in 42 controlled experiments scoring an average of 38 to 45 percent compared to the chance rate of 25 percent. (See Argument # 17) The odds of that occurring by chance are less than one in a billion. More recently, controlled experiments involving four prominent mediums accuracy were done by Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Human Energy Lab of the University of Arizona. (See Argument # 16) These mediums achieved a hit rate 70 to 90 percent, even when in one experiment they were NOT allowed to ask any questions of the sitters or see them! Skeptics repeatedly continue to ignore this fact! (See the Jan 2001 edition of the Journal for the Society of Psychical Research) A list of studies that produced psi results can be found in Dean Radin's book The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena. Many researchers will tell you that these studies prove that telepathy and micro-psychokinesis exist at least on the micro level. The skeptics, of course will say that those tests yielded impossible results and therefore were not done under properly controlled conditions, or else the researchers‚ overzealous desire to get psi results botched the results. But this of course reflects their bias and a priori dismissal of facts that don‚t fit in with their beliefs. It is not logical to deny the facts that don‚t support your beliefs, it is more logical to update your beliefs to account for the facts. Nevertheless, new scientific discoveries tend to pass through stages first before being accepted (see last paragraph of Argument # 8)

4) Fourth, just because something is irrational to skeptics doesn't mean that it is irrational to others who know or believe that it is real. Skeptics and scientific materialists do not have the monopoly on rational thinking. Lots of rational intelligent intellectual people believe in God, spiritual dimensions, or that there is more to reality than the material world. The skeptics' system of rational thinking is not the dictatum by which all things that exist must conform to. This can easily be demonstrated by all the things that skeptics have been wrong about before, such as flight, laws of physics, quantum mechanics, giant squid, etc. proving their fallibility.

comments such as:

I mean where is there any real proof of Paranormal activity..........

UFO's = Bull****

Ghosts = Bull****

Wheres the proof......

is hardly valid skeptical analysis

bug

Hi remote,
your input is appreciate and this has come up before. There is a forum on boards caled Irish skeptics, which is where debating on such issues should really take place.
This forum was mainly set up for believers and although its appreciated when people offer a logical and reasonable or scientific explanation for some of the topics that are discussed here. Its not really a debating forum.
As you can see in the charter it states the purpose of this forum. It was originally an idea that the forum would be private which would illiminate the "ghosts are bulls**t" brigade but, no go Obviously you cant stop people posting their opinions against not believing as such, and I would agree that in those cases, their opinions should be supported by backing up with links etc. As a belivers forum there is no burden of proof for the believers as this is their forum so to speak.

thanks for your input and i'll leave this open for discussion for other forthcoming ;)mods...etc..

Hobbes

Normally it is up to the person making the claim to prove it.

Skeptic or Paranormal.

If say someone says "I can do remote viewing" then it is up to them to prove it.

keu

Argument # 7: "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

Typical Usage: "Skeptics don't have to disprove anything because they're not the ones making a claim. The burden of proof is on the claimant."

When Skeptics who dismiss or deny are challenged to disprove something, they typically respond with this argument which states that since they are not the ones making the claim, they don't have to disprove anything, but that the burden of proof is on the claimant. This argument is similar to the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" requirement of Argument # 2 (see rebuttal for that section). While this may be sound sensible on the surface, it poses some problems for the skeptics' pursuit of knowledge.

1) First of all, as said before, just because one is unable to prove something to others doesn't mean that it is false or nonexistent. For instance, I can't prove what I dreamed about or thought about yesterday, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Also, I can't conclusively prove that I saw a certain movie last month either. The skeptics could say that my saved ticket stub was stolen or forged, that my memory of the movie was obtained from hearing about it, that the people that were with me in the theater only constitute testimony and not proof, etc. You see, there is no way it could be proven 100 percent. Anyone who wants to deny can always find a reason to. The burden of proof may be on the claimant for the scientific and skeptical community to accept it, which is fine and understandable. But this argument is no grounds to use to dismiss claims and explain them away with alternate explanations, which skeptics like Michael Shermer tend to do. That would be more of what a cynic does. After all, why is a debunker's subjective dismissal more credible than one's direct experience? Skeptics can dismiss all they want, but they never seem to understand that they are doing it on purely subjective and speculative grounds.

2) Second, this argument does nothing to aid the skeptic's understanding of the paranormal. All it does is maintain the status quo of their own beliefs. If skeptics want some proof for something, they have to go find it themselves. Though not all paranormal experiences and encounters can be found by those willing to seek, some of them can at least. But asking a claimant to hand over proof on a silver platter isn't really going to lead anywhere. That's not how it works. How would one hand over proof of ghosts, UFO's, mystic experiences, or telepathic experiences, to a skeptic? Can one take a piece of a ghost and bring it back? Skeptics who want to investigate ghosts and UFO's should talk extensively to the eyewitnesses and perhaps spend some nights over in a haunted place, rather than just sitting back and thinking up their own explanations for it. Even the well-liked late Carl Sagan, who dismissed alien abductions offhand in his book The Demon Haunted World, never bothered to interview any abductees to learn about the abduction experience. That's certainly not the action of someone trying to understand something or looking for the truth. If a skeptic wants proof of metaphysical realities through mystical experiences or OBE's, they will have to do the work required to experience it themselves. There are a variety of techniques for inducing OBE's and astral projections. However, most skeptics are unwilling to do these type of things because they consider it a waste of their time since they don't think it's real. Instead, they lazily offer this argument, which makes sense scientifically, but progresses them nowhere in their knowledge or exploration. In fact, not bothering to investigate or experience something yourself, but just sitting back lazily and using this argument makes no sense.

3) Third, the claimant who already has his/her proof doesn't need to prove it to others to validate their experiences. NDEers often emphasize this. Their personal proof from their experience or encounter is a blessing, gift or message meant for them, not for the skeptics. In other words, the claimants, if sincere, have already proved it to themselves. Whether or not skeptics accept the proof is inconsequential to them. Skeptics can believe what they want, but what they think does nothing to change the reality of a paranormal phenomenon. The skeptics who only want to see proof from other people without looking for it themselves is totally missing out on their own transcendental experiences.

to hobbes,
the evidence is already there, you just have to open YOUR eyes and look.

minority

Originally posted by remote viewer
personal experience has validated areas which cannot be explained scientifically

And please prove to us that you got the help of REAL scientists who failed to explain your personal experiences scientifically

This €1,000,000 prize should easy for you to pick up then - prove paranormal activities are real and pick up the €1,000,000.
Hell i'll even buy you a pint if you do

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

So go on any believers out there, take up the challenge. It'll would be some party when you win

keu

And please prove to us that you got the help of REAL scientists who failed to explain your personal experiences scientifically

oh..they weren't REAL scientists..heh...just professional scientists.( I was really just referring to skeptics who fall within the scientific minded category, people who have not had experiences and refute them by claiming scientific impossibilities)

This €1,000,000 prize should easy for you to pick up then - prove paranormal activities are real and pick up the €1,000,000.
Hell i'll even buy you a pint if you do

if you weren't so funny I would smack you.
James randi like I already explained, has set up his own standards, they are not scientific, they are to suit his own personal requirements. He continually evades proof by raising the bar. He has already dismissed scientific evidence gathered by scientific research teams. It's not possible to do by James Randi's standards.
But you can buy me a pint anyway.

bug

Originally posted by Hobbes
Normally it is up to the person making the claim to prove it.

Skeptic or Paranormal.

If say someone says "I can do remote viewing" then it is up to them to prove it.

yes normally but not here.

most of the posts here are ..."I had this experience..." or "I saw this..." ."..what do you think?" Im not going to ask people for proof in those situations as i dont think everyone goes around documenting their experiences scientifically or otherwise.
The other type of posts are linked and asking people what they think about a particular subject...or to discuss it. Notice I said discuss rather than debate there?
Im not going to keep repeating myself, but it is a forum for believers and well if you want to debate about these topics in-depth, boards.ie also provides a forum for that too. Imagine! all in one website!

keu

I just responded to Hobbes request for proof.

keu

RE:James Randi

Argument # 18: "No psychic phenomena has been demonstrated under controlled conditions."

Corollary: "Whenever proper controls are put in place, psi experiments only get average chance results."

This argument is often used by those who don’t believe psi is possible, and that only inadequate controls and methods can result in above chance psi results. Again, this is based on another a priori assumption that psi is impossible. This argument puts skeptics’ mindframe into a closed way of thinking. Any experiment that supports psi is automatically assumed by skeptics to be uncontrolled, and any test that fails is considered to be adequately controlled. However, this is simply not so because as mentioned in Argument 17 above, the successful ganzfeld and autoganzfeld experiments were controlled. For an in-depth description of the controls used, see the following articles. They can also be viewed online at the URL’s listed below.

Bem, D.J. (1996). Ganzfeld phenomena. In G. Stein (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the

paranormal (pp 291-296). Buffalo, NY: Prometheus. Full text available at

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/ganzfeld.html.

Bem, D.J. & C. Honorton (1994). Does psi exist? Replicable evidence for an

anomalous process of information transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.

Full text available at http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html.

Also, here is Daryl Bem's rebuttal to Ray Hyman's critique of the ganzfeld.

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/response_to_hyman.html

Skeptics will say that an experiment was uncontrolled even when they were never at the location of the experiment. This happened with the Stanford Research Institute’s experiments on famous Israeli psychic Uri Geller. Psychic debunker James Randi (Geller’s nemesis) and others who were not at SRI when Geller was tested, made a bunch of accusations against SRI such as poor controls and deliberate skewing of the results on the part of the scientists there, Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. Since Randi and his skeptics were never there, all they have is speculation based on their closed beliefs. As Harold Puthoff told me in some email exchanges regarding Randi’s criticisms:

Puthoff:

"Not true at all. They just quote Randi and his pronouncements, e.g., in his book Flim Flam. In Flim Flam, he gives something like 28 debunking points, if my memory serves me correctly. I had the opportunity to confront Randi at a Parapsychology Association conference with proof in hand, and in tape-recorded interaction he admitted he was wrong on all the points. He even said he would correct them for the upcoming paperback being published by the CSICOP group. (He did not.)

minority

You debunking Randi is the same as a skeptic debunking a paranormal occurance.
yet it is ok for you to do so but not for a skeptic.

Randi will disprove something in front of everyone and then show why and how a trick was done. A believer in paranormal will just say 'Its happened to me' and you cant disprove it. Thats like me saying, 'i went to the moon last night for a pin - prove otherwise'

Regarding Uri Gellar. I went on a magicians course a few years ago. There i learned how to stop my pulse, bend spoons and forks with my mind, and read peoples minds among other things.

Gellar is a fraud. Magicians use trickery and dont pretend it was supernatural. Gellar is just a magician who pretends to have powers.

bug

lads this is not the skeptics forum.. as such I suggest you take/begin this discussion there..
thread locked. Its quite simple really just read the charter...