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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

The charter [FYI]

  • 28-12-2005 11:00PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭


    A suggestion was made a while back with regard to modifying the charter to put in place tighter measures which would once again allow a more open experience for the paranormal chatter.

    Previously the charter had been updated to cater for critical analysis, incidently this opened floodgates for cynicism and permitted skeptics to pound on anyone attempting to share experiences.
    Inevitably this resulted in people being less willing to share their experiences for fear of antagonism.

    Those with a true interest in the paranormal are very capable of the process of critical analysis. For many it is not a case of blind belief, people have reason through experience to understand that there is more to this life than what is perceived or that which has not yet been validated by scientific method.

    This is the paranormal forum, and it should remain a place for those with an interest in the subject to discuss freely and openly any topics related to this sphere, without condemnation from those who do not believe.

    In an effort to reclaim it as such, we would like to hear your opinions and suggestions as to modification of the charter in a way that will most benefit the forum and those who use it.

    How would you like this forum to evolve?
    Does the current charter suffice?
    Or are there any changes you would make that you feel would benefit the forum?






    I think two weeks to log your ideas should suffice.
    thread open til Jan 14.


«13

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    solas wrote:
    A suggestion was made a while back with regard to modifying the charter to put in place tighter measures which would once again allow a more open experience for the paranormal chatter.
    I'm not sure if you mean the suggestion I had recently or something else, but I think it could work well for both the sceptical and the non-sceptical points of view, so I'll put it forward again.

    Basically I think some threads should/could be marked as 'non-sceptical'. Some threads are intended to try to understand various aspects of the paranormal, for example with the mentions of predictions recently I was thinking of starting a thread to explore the processes and methods of making a prediction. Generally a thread like this would end up going round in circles with sceptics looking for evidence of precognition, and no one having anything conclusive. If it could be marked as 'non-sceptical', then everyone could (possibly) benefit from a thread exploring the ideas and theories of precognition and hopefully get a better understanding of what it's about. Any genuine sceptic will recognise that getting a better understanding of the subject will help a lot, I think this is what Zillah was trying with the 'Magic' thread, it's just that sometimes their natural urges to look for evidence and facts ends up getting in the way of discussion.

    Also, some threads are just to pass on information, such as the 'Good Psychic Mediums' thread, a sceptical critique of the whole are of mediumship is not really of any help to anyone.

    Similarly if a thread is marked as 'sceptical' than anyone taking part knows that they will have to back up any statements or opinions with evidence or the reasons for it. Or else they could post to explain some of the thinking behind something but explain that they don't have anything concrete to back it up.

    Seeing as threads are free, if someone wants to ask a sceptical question or make a sceptical point about something on a non-sceptical thread, there's no reason why they couldn't make a new 'sceptical' thread on the subject as with the Natasha Demkina thread), or vice versa.

    The downside to this is that it may create a division in the community, an 'us vs them' mentality, but I'd hope we'd all be big enough to avoid that. Personally I'd like to take part in both sceptical and non-sceptical discussion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    steven wrote:
    Similarly if a thread is marked as 'sceptical' than anyone taking part knows that they will have to back up any statements or opinions with evidence or the reasons for it.
    I really think its time to define this forum for what it is and its not the skeptic society. If people wish to discuss topics from a sceptical point of view then shouldnt they just take them there?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    solas wrote:
    I really think its time to define this forum for what it is
    I'm not sure how a paranormal forum would work without sceptical involvement, if that's what you're saying ? There are many things that come up which do need to be questioned from a sceptical point of view and where scepticism would be be very much suited to the thread (UFO thread for example).

    solas wrote:
    If people wish to discuss topics from a sceptical point of view then shouldnt they just take them there?
    I think I said something similar myself before, but in retrospect, the 'Irish Skeptics' appears to be a real world group with a hosted forum, there may be people entirely unconnected with them who wish the sceptically question things, even if only to learn more about a topic. If it's done respectfully and with an open mind, I don't see why there should be a problem with it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Under a new "no skeptics" regime would mysteria be banned for the following posts?
    mysteria wrote:
    Derek Acorah is definitely not genuine. "Most haunted" is entertainment with no psychic content, he is in the same league as Uri Geller the illusionist
    mysteria wrote:
    Be careful, it is a field full of people who can do psychological damage at worst, at best you are told a bunch of generalizations by chancers.
    mysteria wrote:
    Doris Stokes is a proven charlatan.
    mysteria wrote:
    We will give lectures together but we both have the same opinion on Acorah. (Richard is a historian, "Most Haunted" is just entertainment and I despise that sort of thing as it denigrates a valid, scientific field)

    just asking ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    steven wrote:
    I'm not sure how a paranormal forum would work without sceptical involvement, if that's what you're saying ?
    As a place where people who have had paranormal experiences can go to. They can be truamatic experiences and it is neccessary to have a place where you can find others who might be able to understand or who have shared experience.
    ie: subliminals thread re: dreaming of the dead. Or the time the guy had the precognitive dream and was afraid he forsaw his own death. (can't recall thread)
    There are many things that come up which do need to be questioned from a sceptical point of view and where scepticism would be be very much suited to the thread (UFO thread for example).
    I think there is enough discernment amongst those who have had paranormal experiences to apply an amount of critical analysis. I think scepticism is the wrong word, or approach to use as it dismisses everything which cannot be explained without scientific evidence.
    The UFO thread is a good example of this.
    the 'Irish Skeptics' appears to be a real world group with a hosted forum, there may be people entirely unconnected with them who wish the sceptically question things, even if only to learn more about a topic.
    it is a public forum and therefore it is open to those who wish to discuss topics in that manner. It would be akin to having atheists go to the christianity forum and start a thread about their reasoning of the non existance of God, not to learn more about a topic but to expound their beliefs onto others. I believe there is now a forum which caters for athiests and so all topics related to that issue can be discussed there.
    If it's done respectfully and with an open mind, I don't see why there should be a problem with it.
    This was the general motivation originally for opening up the forum to allow analytical debate. Unfortunately, people seem to have misunderstood the meaning of thw word and the balance has swung in the opposite direction, now the amount of close minded cycnicism which heeds no respect, is debilitating the progress of any decent thread or topic.
    ..it is like as you said earlier
    Generally a thread like this would end up going round in circles with sceptics looking for evidence
    I've concluded that expecting any skeptic to come here respectfully and with an open mind would truly be a magical and miraculous feat.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    ph wrote:
    Under a new "no skeptics" regime would mysteria be banned for the following posts?
    no. There is a difference between criticising and condemning a poster (in an abusive fashion) for voicing their beliefs and applying critical analysis of a topic.
    just asking ...
    don't you mean just sh-t stirring?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    stevenmu wrote:
    The downside to this is that it may create a division in the community, an 'us vs them' mentality, but I'd hope we'd all be big enough to avoid that. Personally I'd like to take part in both sceptical and non-sceptical discussion.

    This has already happened and it is the reason why I rarely post here.
    Yes there are things that I can and will share but how can anyones share
    what they saw, felt, heard and knew if they are quiet frankly lambasted and
    personally attacked or called mentally unstable.

    I did expect there to be open minded people here and had look forward to
    dicussions about ley lines, cold spots, enviromental imprinting, athmosphereic
    replaying of events but it either seems to be the swamping of numbers or
    pick a topic and have a go at anyone who dares to reply.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    solas wrote:
    I've concluded that expecting any skeptic to come here respectfully and with an open mind would truly be a magical and miraculous feat.
    I agree with the points you're making, but I think my idea above pretty much covers it all, in effect allowing the thread starter to define what the paranormal forum is for them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    but I think my idea above pretty much covers it all,
    as an idea with merit in an attempt to provide mutual respect and understanding its all fine and well but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.
    Newbies comming here who havent read the charter wouldn't know whether to mark their posts sceptic or non sceptic. Wouldn't it inhibit free flowing of traffic?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    Zillah wanted to give his opinion.
    Zillah wrote:
    You are correct in saying that the paranormal forum is not the sceptics forum. But then again its not the spirituality forum either. The paranormal forum exists for discussion of paranormal happenings and events. For this science and therefor scepticism must come into it. If people want to discuss their religious beliefs without any critical responses, then surely they should take it to an appropriate forum like spirituality, or christianity or paganism?

    And as I have noted, there is a huge and very relevant distinction between sceptical and cynical.

    Frankly the entire Mysteria incident has been a bit of a farce for almost everyone concerned. It had served to clarify my thoughts on what the forum should be however.

    Mysteria continually produced false, misleading or exaggerated information, and I feel that you as the moderator should come down on obvious lies or half truths as hard as you would someone dishing out personal abuse.

    The "respect others" part of the charter is an obvious neccessity, but it was originally included to allow people to present their experiences without fear of mockery.

    For example; Someone comes to the forum and says they have seen a ghost. We would like to discuss it, get as much information as possible and try to come to a conclusion, or give advice. No personal criticisms should be made, the discussion should remain about the event, not the person.

    For another example; the Mysteria scenario. Mysteria did not present any situations or events of the paranormal, she simply presented unsupported claims and became hostile when questioned.

    To summarise, I feel the paranormal forum should exist for the discussion of paranormal events and phenomena, especially those that can be investigated and either proven or ruled out.

    What has no place on such a forum are undefendable and unfounded personal religious beliefs. Or if someone does want to include their beliefs they should realise that their own beliefs will not serve as an end or an answer for those who don't share them. And they should certainly not become hostile towards those that don't share their beliefs, and don't accept them at face value.

    Also, on the matter of scepticisms: Sceptical thinking is essential if we are to have any hope of advancing understanding of the paranormal. Ever heard the phrase "open minded sceptic"? Well its a redundant phrase, a sceptic is open minded by definition.
    __________________


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    it would be preferable if you could discuss this with the entire forum. the thread will be open for two weeks so you may yet get the oppertunity to do so.
    zillah wrote:
    If people want to discuss their religious beliefs without any critical responses..
    people who have had paranormal experiences would not define them as religious beliefs, they would consider them real experiences although they may not be tangiable in a scientific way.
    I'm not looking for a forum which doesn't provide an amount of critical analysis, but the closed minded skepticism nulls any progress and prevents people from opening up in expressing themselves.

    I can say this confidently because it is how I feel personally.
    Someone comes to the forum and says they have seen a ghost. We would like to discuss it, get as much information as possible and try to come to a conclusion, or give advice. No personal criticisms should be made, the discussion should remain about the event, not the person.
    nothing changes in this respect. again the word critical analysis is much more appropriate under the circumstances.
    What has no place on such a forum are undefendable and unfounded personal religious beliefs.
    see point number one. I have on occasion moved specific threads which were more suitable to the spirituality forum. ie: the thread on angels.
    Mysteria continually produced false, misleading or exaggerated information, and I feel that you as the moderator should come down on obvious lies or half truths as hard as you would someone dishing out personal abuse.
    I barely got a chance to review much of the conversation as I was busy trying to tame the lions.
    Sceptical thinking is essential if we are to have any hope of advancing understanding of the paranormal. Ever heard the phrase "open minded sceptic"? Well its a redundant phrase, a sceptic is open minded by definition.
    I have yet to see evidence of it. I would consider the more open minded skeptics to be good critical thinkers. All I seem to see lately is abusive fundmental skepticism. the "if your not with me your against me" attitude.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    Thaedydal wrote:
    This has already happened and it is the reason why I rarely post here.
    Yes there are things that I can and will share but how can anyones share
    what they saw, felt, heard and knew if they are quiet frankly lambasted and
    personally attacked or called mentally unstable.

    I did expect there to be open minded people here and had look forward to
    dicussions about ley lines, cold spots, enviromental imprinting, athmosphereic
    replaying of events but it either seems to be the swamping of numbers or
    pick a topic and have a go at anyone who dares to reply.
    Yes, it is a problem, do you think an outright ban on skepticism is really needed to solve it ?

    solas wrote:
    as an idea with merit in an attempt to provide mutual respect and understanding its all fine and well but I'm not sure how it would be implemented.
    Newbies comming here who havent read the charter wouldn't know whether to mark their posts sceptic or non sceptic. Wouldn't it inhibit free flowing of traffic?
    To implement it we could do something along the lines of putting or [NS] at the start of thread titles. This would make it fairly clear to people going to post a thread that their is something they need to know about, and maybe a sticky titled ' Or [NS] - Read Here' would explain it to them. Granted some people still won't read it, but the same applies to sceptics who find their way onto the board, they similarly won't read the charter and will go ahead and post anyway. I don't think this would be too disruptive the the flow of traffic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭CodeMonkey


    I see things differently... This is not a public paranormal forum. This is the paranormal section of a public forum called boards.ie. You cannot expect skeptics or any non believers who is part of boards and has an interest to never question anything unless the moderators takes a no tolerance stance or make this a private paranormal forum of boards.ie.
    This is the paranormal forum, and it should remain a place for those with an interest in the subject to discuss freely and openly any topics related to this sphere, without condemnation from those who do not believe.
    And what do you do to some nutcase who makes wild claims like he is the 2nd coming of christ and he was killed yesterday and had risen this morning just in time to post on boards before breakfast. Most believers are sceptics too to paranormal stuff they don't "believe" in. I think half the time you guys are just to polite to say it or don't want to appear hypocritical and that's the difference between sceptics and believers here.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭The Gnome


    I like stevenmu's idea, maybe a split into two subforums is in order?

    If someone wishes to discuss a topic in a non-sceptical fashion for example then the Non-Sceptics subforum (or whatever it would be called) would be used and visa-versa.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    I didnt call for an outright ban on scepticism. I'm stating the issues as they currently are and why they are not neccesary.
    It will be an interesting few weeks to see how the forum progresses without the current bashing from the sceptics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    codemonkey wrote:
    unless the moderators takes a no tolerance stance
    this was how the paranormal forum was in its original conception.
    And what do you do to some nutcase who makes wild claims like he is the 2nd coming of christ and he was killed yesterday and had risen this morning just in time to post on boards before breakfast.Most believers are sceptics too to paranormal stuff they don't "believe" in. I think half the time you guys are just to polite to say it or don't want to appear hypocritical and that's the difference between sceptics and believers here.
    please read the thread carefully before we get into a cycle of repetition.
    me-post#6 wrote:
    I think there is enough discernment amongst those who have had paranormal experiences to apply an amount of critical analysis. I think scepticism is the wrong word, or approach to use as it dismisses everything which cannot be explained without scientific evidence.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    CodeMonkey wrote:
    I think half the time you guys are just to polite to say it or don't want to appear hypocritical and that's the difference between sceptics and believers here.
    I'm just too polite, I don't care about appearing hypocritical :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    It depends on what is being said.
    IF some one said that that they keep hearing footsteps up stairs when there is one on up there or no one in the house next door fine.
    If someone says that they levitated a car or changed the position of the stars in the sky then that certainly is going to need to be questioned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,103 ✭✭✭CodeMonkey


    solas wrote:
    please read the thread carefully before we get into a cycle of repetition.
    sorry :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Thaedydal wrote:
    It depends on what is being said.
    IF some one said that that they keep hearing footsteps up stairs when there is one on up there or no one in the house next door fine.
    If someone says that they levitated a car or changed the position of the stars in the sky then that certainly is going to need to be questioned.
    I agree totally.

    I was also looking at Subliminal's 'Dreaming of the Dead' thread that solas mentioned, and it is entirely free of any skeptical attacks or comments, just some supportive and understanding posts.

    Whereas, if someone makes a claim to be able able to heal or predict the future then it seems that polite enquiries as to the extent of these paranormal powers are going to happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    I understand (I think) the difference being pointed out between being critical of something and being sceptical.

    If we want to discuss things such as
    Thaedydal wrote:
    I did expect there to be open minded people here and had look forward to dicussions about ley lines, cold spots, enviromental imprinting, athmosphereic replaying of events
    or
    solas wrote:
    As a place where people who have had paranormal experiences can go to. They can be truamatic experiences and it is neccessary to have a place where you can find others who might be able to understand or who have shared experience.
    ie: subliminals thread re: dreaming of the dead. Or the time the guy had the precognitive dream and was afraid he forsaw his own death. (can't recall thread)
    from the point of view of believing in or at least accepting the principles behind the topic, wouldn't the spirituality forum be more suitable ? I suspect some people think that any topics there must have religious connotations or involve Gods or deities of some type, but I for one don't see it that way. Maybe the other mods and users would see it differently but I thought it was originally meant, in part, as a place to discuss topics such as the above in a more open and accepting atmosphere than this board.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    Zillah said:
    Zillah wrote:
    I got thinking about the nature of a paranormal forum and the whole sceptical/beleiver situation. And then I realised, its not sceptic vs believer that we should be concerned about, its event and conclusion that we should be aware of. I would suggest that people should be completely free to discuss paranormal events freely, but that people should be aware that their conclusions are not concrete.

    To help explain my point I would say that instead of "events" you could use the words, "occurences", "phenomena" and "facts". Instead of "conclusion" you could use the words, "theory" or "hypothesis".

    For example:

    Myself and Mrs.M are discussing a certain event. In this case what happened was: Mrs.M performed some occultic rituals in which her intention was to stop the rain. Shortly afterward the rain stopped. This is the event. My conclusion would be that it was simply coincidence unless this was repeated several times. Mrs.M's conclusion is that she has magic powers and used them to stop the rain. We should be free to debate and discuss our respective conclusions, and not expect one or the other to accept the other's conclusion at face value.

    See where I'm going with this?

    Bob saw a figure of a little girl run through a wall:

    Sceptic A: Maybe you saw a shadow that seemed to be a little girl?
    Sceptic B: Maybe it was a rat.
    Believer A: It was probably the ghost of a girl that died here.
    Believer B: It was a demon I conjured to eat your soul.

    Those are four conclusions, and none of them should be given priority over the other. What the charter should protect is Bob's right to explain the event without criticism, but each person's conclusion should be under as much scrutiny as we can manage, so as we might get to the truth of the matter.

    So, we might point out to Sceptic A that the lighting was unlikely to cause such a shadow, Sceptic B may be informed that an exterminater had eliminated all the vermin not two days ago. Believer A would be encouraged to investigate the history and see if a little girl had died and if she had been seen before, and Believer B should be expected to produce evidence for the fact that he can conjure demons.


    From reading the original charter it is clear to me that the precautions were put in place to allow people to feel free to present things/events/situations that they have experienced and not to have themselves insulted.

    What it was not designed to do was to protect people's theories about those events, be those theories mystical, scientific or whatever.

    For example, if someone faints in a reportedly haunted basement, one person might say it was a ghost, I might say it was the stuffy atmosphere. My theory should be put under scrutiny; what temperature was it, how fresh was the air, had the person a history of fainting? Similarily, the other person's theory should be put under just as much scrutiny; were any EMF spikes detected, were there sudden cold spots, did anyone else feel it, did the spiritualist medium present know it was coming etc.

    In conclusion (ha) I would say that the paranormal forum exists so that people can share and discuss paranormal happenings, and the charter should ensure that that can happen. What the paranormal forum does not exist for is for people to make unsupported claims and to expect their conclusions to be accepted regardless of whether they can support them or not(this of course applies whether the theory is scientiffic or mystical in nature), and therefore the charter should not protect such things.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,633 ✭✭✭stormkeeper


    The above seems reasonable enough...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,991 ✭✭✭Ziycon


    i think that post should'nt be deleted, they should just be left cause its happened to me and others i assume that they go to find an old thread for what ever reason and its gone!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    ziycon wrote:
    i think that post should'nt be deleted, they should just be left cause its happened to me and others i assume that they go to find an old thread for what ever reason and its gone!
    I'm not in a habit of deleting threads, which one are you referring to.
    Threads are often moved if they are more suited to another forum and people informed of the move.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,991 ✭✭✭Ziycon


    solas wrote:
    I'm not in a habit of deleting threads, which one are you referring to.
    Threads are often moved if they are more suited to another forum and people informed of the move.

    I mean like old threads, i cant remember names but a lot of the old threads have been deleted!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,999 ✭✭✭solas


    if they have, they've been deleted by the system. I've gone through some old threads recently and they all seem intact to me.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    Ziycon wrote:
    I mean like old threads, i cant remember names but a lot of the old threads have been deleted!
    Are your own settings possibly filtering them out ? At bottom of the paranormal main page, there's a drop down box labelled 'From The', make sure this is set to 'Beginning' instead of something like 'Last 3 Months'


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Thaedydal wrote:
    This has already happened and it is the reason why I rarely post here.
    Yes there are things that I can and will share but how can anyones share
    what they saw, felt, heard and knew if they are quiet frankly lambasted and
    personally attacked or called mentally unstable.

    This is appaling behaviour and anyone partaking in it could in no way call themselves a sceptic devoted to logical argument.

    In fact it is a form of logical fallacy called "ad hominem" . Attacking the person. It is usually done by people who are either inept and inexperienced at debate or people who are being defeated an resort to personal attack because they have nothing objective to offer.

    I did expect there to be open minded people here and had look forward to
    dicussions about ley lines, cold spots, enviromental imprinting, athmosphereic
    replaying of events but it either seems to be the swamping of numbers or
    pick a topic and have a go at anyone who dares to reply.

    I would be quite happy to "have a go" at the claims made about such phenomena. I would also ask how they could be measured in a fair way. Attacking the person is NOT the way to go about rational debate. I mean even if they were insane they may well make a valid point and it is for the discussion to attack the point and not detract from the person making it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Sapien


    Interesting ideas, Zillah. Broadly I agree - to the point where I would assume most people would have set out with the attitudes you describe. Would you clarify a couple of points for me?
    Zillah wrote:
    Myself and Mrs.M are discussing a certain event. In this case what happened was: Mrs.M performed some occultic rituals in which her intention was to stop the rain. Shortly afterward the rain stopped. This is the event. My conclusion would be that it was simply coincidence unless this was repeated several times. Mrs.M's conclusion is that she has magic powers and used them to stop the rain. We should be free to debate and discuss our respective conclusions, and not expect one or the other to accept the other's conclusion at face value.

    How and at what point did the discussion you take as an example deviate from the way you believe it should have been conducted?
    Zillah wrote:
    In conclusion (ha) I would say that the paranormal forum exists so that people can share and discuss paranormal happenings, and the charter should ensure that that can happen. What the paranormal forum does not exist for is for people to make unsupported claims and to expect their conclusions to be accepted regardless of whether they can support them or not(this of course applies whether the theory is scientiffic or mystical in nature), and therefore the charter should not protect such things.

    What do you mean by unsupported claims? Give an example from this forum of an unsupported claim and explain how it could have been supported. Give an example of a claim that has been made and supported on this board, with the exception of posted photographs. Do all claims need to be supported, or only certain kinds? If the latter, which kinds should be supported?

    Direct our attention to an instance when a poster made a claim "expect[ing] their conclusions to be accepted". While it may be obvious what you mean when you say that claims can be supported, it is not so obvious how conclusions could be supported. Is this not what you mean by '"theory" or "hypothesis"'? Do you mean that there are certain kinds of theory which you believe shouldn't be admissible in this forum?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement