to the powers that be in the skeptic forum

iamhunted

hi

I just cant help noticing that nearly everything 'skeptical' on this forum is based on mediums and psychics. first off why is this? most people wont reply to such threads as we're well aware that theres many fake mediums and psychics - its not really new news or anything.

Can you post up any other threads of a skeptical nature? maybe some reaosnable explainations for evps (the 'its the tape recorder making a sound thats like a voice' and other such guesswork explainations are to be avoided though), or select some paranormal videos and explain how they've been tampered with etc etc.

people might even post in here if there was an interesting, new, non medium/psychic thread to post in.

Lucas10101

First of all, my Science Vs Paranormality thread deals with ghosts/poltergeists etc mostly.

My Forer Effect thread deals with Psychics and Mediums.

You set up an interesting debate if you wish.

iamhunted

your science and paranormality is about religion and virtually ever other thread in this forum is about mediums. I dont have anything to add to the skeptics forum as if I did it would be going into the paranormal forum. as far as I can make out, the only reason this forum exists is to slag off mediums.

Lucas10101

Well, I love to slag off Mediums. Why? Because they're slagging & ripping off people in return.

In my Science Vs. Paranormality thread, I briefly mentioned religion in that both require faith and both have not a shred of evidence. It was an analogy, not a thread starter.

That thread encompasses every form of Paranormality, from Ghosts to Demons, in that fundamentally (as proved by my arguments) and rationally, they are unlikely to exist.

Stop crying about the threads and build a large wall and get over it.

You're beginning to sound like a juvenile brat.

The_Joker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Well, I love to slag off Mediums. Why? Because they're slagging & ripping off people in return.

In my Science Vs. Paranormality thread, I briefly mentioned religion in that both require faith and both have not a shred of evidence. It was an analogy, not a thread starter.

That thread encompasses every form of Paranormality, from Ghosts to Demons, in that fundamentally (as proved by my arguments) and rationally, they are unlikely to exist.

Stop crying about the threads and build a large wall and get over it.

You're beginning to sound like a juvenile brat.

OUCH!

iamhunted if you were "Psychic" you'd have seen that coming

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

I just cant help noticing that nearly everything 'skeptical' on this forum is based on mediums and psychics.

Really? If you look at the threads started in the last 100 days on this forum they subjects are

• Psychics
• Paranormal Belief
• James Randi
• Vampires
• String Theory
• Speed of light (restrictions)
• Spirtual hauntings
• Psychics
• Paranormal Belief
• UFOs
• Cosmic background noise
• Psychics

There where 3 threads about psychics. There were 9 threads that weren't.

So where you are getting "nearly everything" discussed here is about psychics I'm not sure. Do you have anything quantitative to back your assertion up with?

iamhunted wrote: »

Can you post up any other threads of a skeptical nature? maybe some reaosnable explainations for evps

You are miss-understanding scepticism if you think it is about offering "reasonable explanations" for things like electronic "voice" phenomena.

Scepticism is about placing explanations to the test. Offering alternative explanations is not required. Most sceptics are perfectly happy with "I don't know", the problem is when people start offering explanations that cannot stand up to the rigours of examination.

The burden of explanation is with the person making the claim.

iamhunted wrote: »

(the 'its the tape recorder making a sound thats like a voice' and other such guesswork explainations are to be avoided though)

That is the point. Any explanation given would just be a guess and as such rather worthless. "I don't know" is the most reasonable response. So why are you asking sceptics to put forward explanations while at the same time (correctly) attack such explanations as being nothing more than guesses.

.

Oryx

...look at the threads started in the last 100 days...

This thread is bumped from January. Debate has picked up considerably since then.

Zombrex

Oryx wrote: »

This thread is bumped from January. Debate has picked up considerably since then.

Ah right, missed that.

Well thankfully the forum is more appealing to iamhunted now

iamhunted

oh god, here we go - bored fest mk2.

* Psychics - about psychics
* Paranormal Belief
* James Randi - about psychics
* Vampires
* String Theory - started by me
* Speed of light (restrictions) - started by me
* Spirtual hauntings - about psychics
* Psychics - about psychics
* Paranormal Belief - mainly about psychics
* UFOs
* Cosmic background noise -
* Psychics - about psychics

I have to wonder why I had to do that since its obvious most of them are about psychics. More waffle anyone?

You are miss-understanding scepticism if you think it is about offering "reasonable explanations" for things like electronic "voice" phenomena.

Scepticism is about placing explanations to the test. Offering alternative explanations is not required. Most sceptics are perfectly happy with "I don't know", the problem is when people start offering explanations that cannot stand up to the rigours of examination.

The burden of explanation is with the person making the claim.

you are misunderstanding quite a bit. You are a cynic sir, full stop. You can neither say 'I dont know' now try to offer any constructive help. No-one has been "offering explanations that cannot stand up to the rigours of examination" so kindly step off that horse before it bucks you.

That is the point. Any explanation given would just be a guess and as such rather worthless. "I don't know" is the most reasonable response. So why are you asking sceptics to put forward explanations while at the same time (correctly) attack such explanations as being nothing more than guesses.

guessing is a hell of a lot better than pretending you know the answer. whats your choice? sit on your arse pretending you know everything or bothering to try and find out?

Actually, dont - we all know the answer to that one. Im anxiously awaiting another of your heavily quoted posts that dont really say much.

Oryx

iamhunted, I really want to be on your side. Honest. Even though Im one of your cursed folk, (psychic/medium types) I would have thought we were fighting the same corner regardless. But your posts come off wildly agressive, and theres no need. If a cynic is being a tool, then you ignore it, however many posters who oppose you here are not being ignorant, imo, they just disagree with you, but what do you expect, they come from a strong scientific background? In fairness, the paranormal realm is chock full of hokum. We do have an uphill struggle for any kind of respect, and if we want it, we have to work their way, with scientific analysis. Not guesswork.

Rather than disagree with people here for the sake of it, Ive started reading some damn good books on science, so I can understand why we seem such idiots to them.

If you felt the threads you point out above swayed too strongly into psychic territory, its up to you to steer them in a way you would prefer, forum rules permitting, or as you have done, begin your own. I agree with you, paranormal is not all about psychics, neither for that matter, is James Randi (which youll notice if you survey his proposed test candidates - he gets all kinds of weird).

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

I have to wonder why I had to do that since its obvious most of them are about psychics. More waffle anyone?

Even the ones you tagged (falsely as it turns out, the Randi thread mentioned psychics but was about his million dollar challange, and the paranormal belief again mentioned psychics but was about belief and why people belive), only make up half the threads.

I can't help feel you are looking for something to be annoyed at.

iamhunted wrote: »

You are a cynic sir, full stop.

You appear to brand anyone who disagrees with you a cynic. That to me just makes you come across as not understanding that that word actually means.

iamhunted wrote: »

You can neither say 'I dont know' now try to offer any constructive help.

Saying "I don't know" is offering constructive help, particularly if it is followed with a (much needed) explanation of the logic behind such a statement. Often the most sensible thing a person can do is realise what they don't know. Guessing and speculation, particularly with the assumption that these things mean something tangible, is often very unhelpful.

"The wise man knows he doesn't know. the fool doesn't know he doesn't know."
Lao Tzu

iamhunted wrote: »

No-one has been "offering explanations that cannot stand up to the rigours of examination" so kindly step off that horse before it bucks you.

Good, lets keep it that way shall we.

iamhunted wrote: »

guessing is a hell of a lot better than pretending you know the answer. whats your choice?

Neither, its saying "I don't know"

iamhunted wrote: »

sit on your arse pretending you know everything or bothering to try and find out?

Only someone who is looking for an argument could take the statement "I don't know what that is" and turn it into the accusation that I'm pretending to know everything.

How would you like me to "bother to try and find out" given the limitations of discussing this on an Internet forum? I've listened to the tape, I don't know what the sound is.

Given that I'm not assuming it is something special or paranormal, and given your rather hostile and aggressive tone and attitude towards me and other posters here, I'm also not welling up with a strong desire to know what that sound is.

iamhunted

The_Joker wrote: »

OUCH!

iamhunted if you were "Psychic" you'd have seen that coming

yeah indeed. I dont get the ouch bit though ... why should i be worried if someone insists that ghosts cant exist?

iamhunted

ive said it before and I'll say it again - telling me you know the answers doesnt wash. You dont know them no matter how 'rationally' (thats just for you Lucas10101, the one who likes to call people 'brats' - oh lordy) you *think* you think. You do realise name calling is a sign you dont have an argument dont you?

Wicknight - I can quote your posts and really say nothing as well, but end up with a long post if thats the game you want to play. I dont brand 'anyone who disagress' a cynic. I brand those who, hell or high water wont give a second thought to the slight chance there might be something to the paranormal, cynics. You jsut happen to fit that particular bill quite well. Lots of misnamed 'skeptics' fit that bill.

Saying "I don't know" is offering constructive help, particularly if it is followed with a (much needed) explanation of the logic behind such a statement. Often the most sensible thing a person can do is realise what they don't know. Guessing and speculation, particularly with the assumption that these things mean something tangible, is often very unhelpful.

precisely. why cant you just say 'I dont know' then? Plus try researching anything without 'Guessing and speculation' - its even less unhelpful. seriously, i cant be arsed with this type of 'argument' as its too easy to pick to pieces.

"The wise man knows he doesn't know. the fool doesn't know he doesn't know."

calling yourself a fool eh?

Given that I'm not assuming it is something special or paranormal, and given your rather hostile and aggressive tone and attitude towards me and other posters here, I'm also not welling up with a strong desire to know what that sound is.

if in doubt, say im getting hostile. yeah yeah.

pH

iamhunted wrote: »

Wicknight - I can quote your posts and really say nothing as well, but end up with a long post if thats the game you want to play. I dont brand 'anyone who disagress' a cynic. I brand those who, hell or high water wont give a second thought to the slight chance there might be something to the paranormal, cynics. You jsut happen to fit that particular bill quite well. Lots of misnamed 'skeptics' fit that bill.

Well then, you're using the word incorrectly:

cynic noun 1 someone who takes a pessimistic view of human goodness or sincerity.

Cynics are not those you refuse to believe out of stubbornness, a cynic merely thinks you're lying when you say you don't know how that "laugh" gone on the tape

The_Joker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

You're beginning to sound like a juvenile brat.

That's what the ouch bit was about.

iamhunted wrote: »

yeah indeed. I dont get the ouch bit though ... why should i be worried if someone insists that ghosts cant exist?

Who insists that ghosts can't exist?

The word is proof!

There's simply no 100% proof that Ghosts, Spirits, God, Allah, Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya, Ganesha or any other type of deity exists or do not exist.

But a person who says there is no such thing as a ghost/spirit yet believes in a God must be a hypocrite.

As a Christian if you go to mass and pray to God and Jesus and the holy SPIRIT/GHOST then turn around and say there are no such things as ghosts well that's just plain bull, you can't hold one belief regarding to a higher power that no one has proof of and turn around and say "there is no such thing as ghosts".


If you stare up at the stars and wonder where it all came from, some say it all started from the big bang (no God involved) but of course others will say there was no big bang God created the whole shebang had a day off on the 7th day and hasn't been seen since, but his son popped up a few years back and disappeared too!

Ok fair enough it's either the scientists or the religious crowd are correct or are they?
Well here's a question to both sides.

1 What was there before the big bang?
2 What was there before God created the universe?

The scientists will say there was nothing there.
I say prove it!
The religious crowd will probably look at you with the good book in hand and start quoting you versus.
I say prove that too!

So if there was nothing there before the big bang or Gods creation, where did the nothing come from? and who put it there?
This argument has raged on for a long time and will continue to until the sun burns out dies and takes us all with it.


As for ghosts hell yeah they exist why shouldn't they!
And I challenge anyone to prove me wrong because I can't prove it right

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

I brand those who, hell or high water wont give a second thought to the slight chance there might be something to the paranormal, cynics.

Define "hell or high water"?

Do you think that those trying demonstrate paranormal explanations for unexplained phenomena have given sceptics (or anyone else for that matter) a strong enough demonstration that their explanations are accurate at explaining the phenomena?

I would be very interested to see a paranormal explanation that you think has been demonstrated to the point where you can dismiss those who don't accept it as simply being stubborn.

iamhunted wrote: »

You jsut happen to fit that particular bill quite well. Lots of misnamed 'skeptics' fit that bill.

If you can name or document the paranormal explanation that you think I am stubbornly refusing to accept I assure you that I can explain exactly to you why I have yet to accept it as an accurate explanation for some unexplained phenomena.

Again it seems to me that you use the term cynic simply to avoid having to back up your own statements. You dismiss people who disagree with you as being cynical. This is probably easier than admitting they might have a point.

iamhunted wrote: »

precisely. why cant you just say 'I dont know' then?

I seem to remember saying that a number of times and being insulted by you a number of times for saying just that.

It seems to me that if I say I do not know what some sound is you dismiss me as being unhelpful and uninterested and cynical. But if I were to hazard a guess as to what the sound was you would accuse me of making unsupported speculation and guessing

It seems rather that when discussing something with you one is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

iamhunted wrote: »

Plus try researching anything without 'Guessing and speculation' - its even less unhelpful. seriously, i cant be arsed with this type of 'argument' as its too easy to pick to pieces.

I'd imagine that if you could pull my points to pieces you would no doubt have already done that already, rather than simply informing me that you could if you wished to but you couldn't be bothered at the moment.

iamhunted wrote: »

calling yourself a fool eh?

Well no, because I'm happy to say I don't know what something is.

iamhunted wrote: »

if in doubt, say im getting hostile. yeah yeah.

Are you not getting hostile? Is this you calm and polite?

The_Joker

I'm not being defense or trying to offend I've read through your posts on this thread iamhunted and I have one question aside from rubbing people up the wrong way what exactly are you looking for?

JC 2K3

Something strange happens, say a load of people are staying in an old house and are all awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of someone screaming.

Someone hypothesises that the house is haunted and that the screams come from the spirit of someone who maybe lost their life in the house. After researching it further, they discover that someone was murdered in the house 100 years previously.

Believers in the paranormal will find this to be very interesting and will consider the fact that someone was murdered in the house to be strong evidence for a spirit residing in the house and haunting those who stay there.

Skeptics, when confronted with such a hypothesis, will simply ask much more questions, and in accordance with the scientific method, attempt to falsify the claim. They will ask questions such as: What is a spirit? What evidence is there for the existence of spirits? What does it mean for a house to be "haunted"? How certain are these people that they heard a person screaming and not some other noise? What beliefs/characteristics do these people have that might bias them towards identifying a different sound to someone screaming? Is there anything that could possibly produce a noise similar to a person screaming in the house or in the general vicinity? Can this screaming be recreated? etc.

A cynic would not ask these questions, and just dismiss the paranormal hypothesis.

However, it's easy to see how a skeptic might seem cynical, because if you apply rigorous questioning such as the above to any paranormal hypothesis, it generally doesn't stand up against it, meaning most skeptics will reject most paranormal hypothesises outright. The problem with paranormal hypothesises is that they generally don't explain anything.

As for this forum, it is a bit pointless really. It would work well if people from the paranormal forum posted paranormal hypothesises on here and let us skeptics dissect them and perhaps show them why, scientifically, they don't stand up. However, I reckon most people who post on the paranormal forum would be less than interested in a skeptical analysis of things they like to believe in.

Oryx

Jc 2k3, I dont know if theres anything in the charter to prevent sceptical posters from pulling situations from the main forum and dissecting them anyway. As long as no-one is insulting or rude to the poster of the original story. Ditto for any paranormal situation from any source.

But I think the reason this forum generally doesnt work, is because all we have here are posts. Words, anecdotes, pictures, sometimes sounds. You cant repeat, or test or do anything 'sciencey' here. All you can do is discuss. And that goes wrong too because people cannot leave their personalities and prejudices at the door. (I include myself in that.:p)

Lots of people who post in paranormal are NOT looking for a scientific breakdown of whats going on. They want to see what the paranormal slant might be. If they didnt, theyd post in sleeping and dreaming, home and garden, or PI. Which is why someone coming on and saying you imagined it/it was a fox/youre mad stunts discussion and irritates people, and leads to accusations of cynicism. All possibilities can be offered, but noone can ever give a definitive explanation here. All any of us can do, on either side of the paranormal fence is hypothesise. And try and be nice about it.

JC 2K3

Oryx, do you think paranormal discussions are simply a pastime, a form of escapism, if you will, or something genuinely useful in terms of discovering more about the world?

Oryx

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Oryx, do you think paranormal discussions are simply a pastime, a form of escapism, if you will, or something genuinely useful in terms of discovering more about the world?

They can be all of that.

Using boards is a pastime, though Id love to convince my boss otherwise. Paranormal discussions form part of that, and lots of it is entertainment value for me. I like hearing other peoples stories, and offering my 2c (a lot). Quite often you can reassure someone here who has been spooked about something, that theyve nothing to fear - that in itself is useful to them. You also learn a lot here, it can provoke you to find out more about a subject, and change your perspectives sometimes. Of course a lot of the time, you just go.. thats interesting... but nothing more can be known or understood and the anecdote must stand alone as just that.

I have my own personal interest in mediumship (you may have picked up on that already) and I have used the forum as a means to have my own views challenged. Other posters force me to analyse whats going on with what I do, so I dont kid myself or anyone else. You come up against a lot of negativity irl, what better way to prepare for it than to throw yourself in headfirst here? I also would hope that even in a small way, I might show that not all mediums and psychics are money grabbing, scheming, low down and devious charlatans. Some are actually nice people who dont do it for any material gain.

I do think discussion, here or elsewhere, is of value. Whether boards.ie will change the world Im not sure. But regardless, if you spend time here you do learn. About how other people think, about myths and legends, about what keeps people awake at night. You learn to accept when a personal belief is based on an incorrect perception, too.

You also hear about how intruiging some of the paranormal areas actually are. Stuff does happen that is pretty darn odd. Because of the difficulty of sourcing and repeating paranormal events, all we can have is a slowly building body of evidence that has neither been proven nor debunked, because its a one off occurence. Its hardly the extraordinary evidence required to change scientific perspectives, but its enough to make people ask more questions, imo.

Scientists usually decide it is too flimsy or professionally damaging to spend time on, and I can see why. But even if research catagorically disproves something (ahem.. see homeopathy...) then that itself is of use, because you have helped to establish what IS going on. (Placebo effect).

To sum up. Discussion rocks.

mister gullible

I had a strange feeling (premonition?)that I shouldn't bother read this thread and funnily enough I was right. Crystal ball gazing, navel gazing ... Comic Noises sound interesting though.