The Skeptics are losing to the Psychics

dandelion

There are 200 plus thread on the adjoing "Psychics" board and only 40 odd on this one. Looks like the belivers outnumber the skeptics on a large scale.
Maybe we're not selling it right. Time to come up with some new angles to sell scepticism. What about
"Believe in nothing and everything will be ok!"

"Stop worrying and everything will sort itself out in time, or it might get a little worse." please send your cheque to....

"worried about what the future holds? So are we!"

"If you're concerned about a relationship, worried about job prospects, or think your partner might be cheating on you, well guess what, half of the country feels the same way....

Lucas10101

Us, the skeptics, are losing nothing. The believers are the ones losing their minds.

It just goes to show, you always have a few intelligent among the gullible.

Psychics and Mediums are under the umbrella term of "Con-Artists"...and even though you may have the odd coincidence among millions, statistically, if you analyze it, the probability of guessing anyway is roughly equal. So I'm not impressed when a fact is revealed at all.

I have a separate thread on the Forer effect which exposes Mediums and also exposes a particular medium whom I got a "reading" off. To be honest, I could have proposed better barnum statements than she did, but fair play to her, she tricks people into paying her 80euro for a visit...I call the Legal Con-Artists. She preys on peoples credulity and makes a living out of it. They also give people FALSE COMFORT and FALSE HOPE, by telling them untruths about the dead. It's enough to make you sick.

iamhunted

i agree with the OP -proof of the pudding is in the support and the skeptics forum doesnt have much of it. dammit if I didnt argue all the time on here it'd be even quieter

Lucas10101

iamhunted....excuse me...but YOU are the ones that have the BURDEN OF PROOF. How can I possibly give proof that it doesn't exist. It's not possible. Use your logic please!!! I feel guilty patronizing you.

The Burden of Proof does NOT lie with the unbeliever.

So put that in your pipe...and smoke it.

jameboyle@hotma

Want PROOF ? I saw a photo of Fiona Sinnot ........taken last year....

dsmythy

Those who strongly believe in the paranormal use every event of a dubious nature and turn it into a paranormal story. The end result of this is they spend a lot of time telling these stories.

iamhunted

i think the main thing people who class themselves as skeptics miss (besides the fact we're all actually skeptics in one shape or form, just skeptical of different things) is that it makes no odds to those who have experienced something paranormal just what you think of it. personally I dont care if none of you believe anything ive experienced - makes no odds to me at all.

All I see is a bunch of people who dont realise that belief in things like the paranormal - or indeed any level of research at at all into such things, is how science learns and develops. a few hundred years ago all of you would be preaching about the goodness of leeches for the medical profession and how flat the earth is.

You dont learn by sticking your head in the mud saying 'that doesnt happen'. if you hear a 'paranormal story' how do you know its not true until you look into it? answer is you dont. in fact unless you bother checking out these things you cant really say much about it at all.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

iamhunted....excuse me...but YOU are the ones that have the BURDEN OF PROOF. How can I possibly give proof that it doesn't exist. It's not possible. Use your logic please!!! I feel guilty patronizing you.

The Burden of Proof does NOT lie with the unbeliever.

So put that in your pipe...and smoke it.

how can i smoke that? all youre telling me is "nah nah nah naah nah its not up to me to prove anything" - its easy being the doubter and take such a simple route out - but what have you done to back up your doubts? what theories of the paranormal have you tested and found wanting? Nothing, thats what. you feel guilty patronising me? thats a laugh, its something you arent capable of doing.

iamhunted

dsmythy wrote: »

Those who strongly believe in the paranormal use every event of a dubious nature and turn it into a paranormal story. The end result of this is they spend a lot of time telling these stories.

this is such a stereotypical reply. If you're going to slag off people who believe in the paranormal, at least make some effort to actually have a clue as to what they do or believe.

DeVore

iamhunted wrote: »

i think the main thing people who class themselves as skeptics miss (besides the fact we're all actually skeptics in one shape or form, just skeptical of different things) is that it makes no odds to those who have experienced something paranormal just what you think of it. personally I dont care if none of you believe anything ive experienced - makes no odds to me at all.

All I see is a bunch of people who dont realise that belief in things like the paranormal - or indeed any level of research at at all into such things, is how science learns and develops. a few hundred years ago all of you would be preaching about the goodness of leeches for the medical profession and how flat the earth is.

You dont learn by sticking your head in the mud saying 'that doesnt happen'. if you hear a 'paranormal story' how do you know its not true until you look into it? answer is you dont. in fact unless you bother checking out these things you cant really say much about it at all.

But thats not what they are saying at all.

I am fascinated by the "unknown" but in a scientific manner. See those shows where they take real science instruments into haunted houses and try to capture anomalous data? I love them!

Do I believe that there is much man has yet to learn about his world, his environment and even him/herself? Absolutely. We've never yet reached a point where we known everything in our history so the likelihood that we have now, is vanishingly small.

But I want data, facts, reproduceability, hard evdence. What I'm NOT going to do is simply accept the story of the first nutter to wander by. In your analogy you say we are like the people who claimed the world was flat and stuck to it. Thats not accurate. We are the people waiting for the proof that it is round. You on the other hand entertain AS FACT the stories of other "believers", any of them, simply because they are told.

To avoid this obvious subjectivism, scientists use cold hard instrumentation to show who is right.

So far, its us.

DeV.

iamhunted

no, you are incorrect. I dont take anything anyone tells me as 'fact'. i do though know my own experiences and I cant exactly argue with them. is this an example of yet more assumptions being made?

Yet again a 'skeptic' has an incorrect view on exactly what those in the paranormal community 'believe' in? I think so. I say get with it skeptics and start to learn your so called enemy as your intelligence on the subject is a tad outdated

DeVore wrote: »

See those shows where they take real science instruments into haunted houses and try to capture anomalous data? I love them!.

I love that too as they use the gear to find logical everyday solutions (though that depends on the show you watch). Seeing things? that can be caused by high levels of EMF so use an emf metre to track it down. tape recorders? they're handy for EVP and video camcorders are handy to have to video things which when combined with your tape recordings will give you a good idea of what was going on at the time. what other 'scientific' tools would you like explained?

To avoid this obvious subjectivism, scientists use cold hard instrumentation to show who is right.
So far, its us.

as in Us = Scientists ? I beg to differ as most scientists wouldnt survive without being able to change their views on something.

iamhunted

Also DeV - what exactly would happen if science was to embrace some form of the paranormal (say for instance, parallel universes) - where would that leave the skeptics? would you suddenly believe in it because 'science' says its possible? ( i use inverted commas as science is much more multi faceted that skeptics seem to give it credit for)

SkepticOne

I think the reason for the disparity of threads is mainly because the skeptical position doesn't rely so much on social reinforcement of one's beliefs.

pH

iamhunted wrote: »

Seeing things? that can be caused by high levels of EMF so use an emf metre to track it down.

That sounds like a repeatable test, though I dare say if we get into it you probably don't even know what an electromagnetic field it (based on your use of the phrase "high levels of EMF"), however I'll bite, how do you show that high levels of EMF make people see things? Is this repeatable in a lab?

DeVore

iamhunted wrote: »

Also DeV - what exactly would happen if science was to embrace some form of the paranormal (say for instance, parallel universes) - where would that leave the skeptics? would you suddenly believe in it because 'science' says its possible? ( i use inverted commas as science is much more multi faceted that skeptics seem to give it credit for)

I am completely confused by your arguments, I'm sorry.... honestly, I dont understand what points you are trying to make except for the one above. I'll answer that and await any clarification or simplification you can come back with.


Anyway, firstly physicists have long accepted the theory of parallel universes. Quantum mechanics and Shroedingers Cat experiement all point towards it. I dont have a problem with the idea of the "fantasical", what I have a problem with is the idea of "paranormal" as its usually used.

Show me how we can scientifically measure a ghost in a repeatable test and I'll be happy to say hello! In fact show me a repeatable test done in scientific conditions which proves ANY of the usual "paranormal" claims and I will be happy to acknoledge your addition to our racial knowledge pool (and I would expect to see you win a Nobel prize too, you would deserve it, quite seriously). I'll pay you 500,000 dollars if you can in fact. (I'll claim a million from the Randi Corporation but never mind me )

I'm not closed minded, I'm perfectly happy to accept new ideas and indeed throw out old ones but not for NO reason... I need scientific proof.

DeV.

iamhunted

i agree with a lot of what you say. My point about parallell universes is that it wasnt so long ago that most scientists laughed at the idea yet now its a theory.

you differ from many of the standard skeptics on here as you are open to change - granted you want to see the scientific proof now, but you are open to change.

Someone though, has to go looking so you can eventually get scientific proof - i think thats the main thing skeptics miss out on.

yes they want the proof, but yet they think anyone who looks for such information is a gullible 'believer' ... but if no-one ever went looking for information, things would never progress.

DeVore

Galileo was a heretic, Einstein was persecuted (mostly because he was Jewish but relativity wasnt accepted in German because it came from a Jew), scientific endeavour has always attracted scorn and disbelief. Thats not the skeptic position though, true skeptics are merely skeptical of NO PROOF AT ALL.

If someone isnt willing to change their point of view when presented with scientific quality proof (that is, controlled conditions and reasonably repeatable) then they arent skeptics, they are idiots.

When I said I loved those shows where they bring equipment in to examine claims of the paranormal, I wasnt being sarcastic. I really DO love watching them, ok personally I think they are wasting their time but thats real science in action and I have great regard for people who are willing to take that approach.

The "Most haunted" series, where some bloke or some mystic meg wanders around pretending to black and out contact "the other side"... those style of programs are beyond contempt imho.

I think you are misunderstanding the "skeptics" position and are a good bit closer to it then you might think

DeV.

iamhunted

dont get me started on most haunted - or most of the 'paranormal' shows on tv. I am a skeptic though, of that I have no doubt, though Ive found there are some things paranormal Im no longer skeptical about though various experiences. In those instances ive moved from skeptical to just plain confused which is one of the main reasons Im involved in the whole 'paranormal research' lark - to see if I can un-confuse myself about certain things.

I do believe a lot of the things we class as paranormal today will end up being the result of environmental/brain related things we currently dont understand - but again, if no-one is out there trying to understand these things then we'll get nowhere.

DeVore

I, and I suspect most of this forum, am totally down with "understanding" as you kids say.

DeV.

iamhunted

haha - i wish i was a kid

Ryanzo

iamhunted wrote: »

...and start to learn your so called enemy as your intelligence on the subject is a tad outdated...

It will always be outdated, the same view will always be taken toward the "paranormal", simply because there is no evidence, there NEVER was, and there NEVER will be.

iamhunted wrote: »

...Seeing things? that can be caused by high levels of EMF so use an emf metre to track it down. tape recorders? they're handy for EVP and video camcorders are handy to have to video things which when combined with your tape recordings will give you a good idea of what was going on at the time...

Ok...

Can I have my evidence now. Those tools you describe should come in handy for gathering it...



Not talking about anyone in particular when I say this but I had a vision (as follows)

Someone in this immediate area woke up one day, smelled the roses and decided to become extremely rational and become wildly copped on... oh im seeing something else - they are hunted??? hmm...

iamhunted

Ok...

Can I have my evidence now. Those tools you describe should come in handy for gathering it...

have you gone looking? Theres plenty of paranormal research sites out there with the information they've collected to date if you could be bothered going and finding them. dont be expecting me to do the looking for you. Unless you're making an argument AGAINST electro magnetic radiation affecting the brain and causing people to see things which means you obviously do believe in 'ghosts' - im confused as to just where you stand.

It will always be outdated, the same view will always be taken toward the "paranormal", simply because there is no evidence, there NEVER was, and there NEVER will be.

how do you know theres no evidence when you have never went looking for it? unless of course you've scoured the world looking for some positive proof, which i doubt. otherwise you're just being the cynic.

Someone in this immediate area woke up one day, smelled the roses and decided to become extremely rational and become wildly copped on... oh im seeing something else - they are hunted??? hmm...

i wish i had a clue as to what youre on about there. oh sorry, did you make a funny?

Ryanzo

Yep just as i expected u couldnt give one straigth answer, your just like the rest of them, quit the jibber jabber.

Heres something i just happened to come across (oh btw im making a funny again, whatever that means...)

Part One
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=w2VzR-lxwBs&feature=channel_page

Part Two
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0ZIHTanmk&feature=channel_page

Part Three
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKaVaXKPcUM&feature=channel_page

Theres one guy in there that says< he's hunted???

Edit, now this is a nice one on esp, some good evidence in there.

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=C90RfJjysXQ&feature=channel_page

iamhunted

there are no straight answers in regards to the paranormal as we cant even say it exists yet. I dont really know just what kind of proof youre looking for because if unequivical undeniable proof existed then we wouldnt be discussing this. Im saying we cant be sure it doesnt exist (as in the undeniable proof) as you'll only know that for sure if you make some attempt to look for it.

You on the other hand seem pretty darned sure the paranormal is all bunkum. Considering how many people have experienced something 'paranormal' Im amazed you've completed enough research to say that as fact.

Personally, i cant say either way.

(BTW - ESP and Alien abductions, along with mediums, are probably the most dodgiest of things 'paranormal'. I'd wager most family pets wouldnt have a hard time debunking most of those)

Ryanzo

iamhunted wrote: »

...Considering how many people have experienced something 'paranormal' ...

I think you meant to say: "Consider how many people have experienced severe schyzophrenia, mental breakdowns and surreal hallucinations".

...I made another funny.

iamhunted

obviously a much bigger funny than you expected considering you're telling me you know for a fact that everyone who has experienced something paranormal "have experienced severe schyzophrenia, mental breakdowns and surreal hallucinations".

You don't fancy backing that up with some medical evidence? Now, not evidence about people who have "experienced severe schyzophrenia, mental breakdowns and surreal hallucinations" but the stuff that tells us that every person who ever reported a paranormal experience "have experienced severe schyzophrenia, mental breakdowns and surreal hallucinations".

Cus thats what your argument rests on.

iamhunted

*EDIT*

This was technically off topic so I made a new thread for it

Ryanzo

Sorry I cant im not an esteemed researcher like yourself.

Drop me a PM when you get a few ghosts on camera or find a few mentally restricted individuals to tell you a story that you are forcing yourself to believe.

In the meantime il go about my days like every other mentally sane individual and think openly with the utmost rationality, or as you children like to say "skepticize".

iamhunted

no offense - and disregarding the snide-ish remark - are you basically telling me you cant back up your previous post? If so, why are you arguing this point with me?

iamhunted

Ryanzo wrote: »

Drop me a PM when you get a few ghosts on camera or find a few mentally restricted individuals to tell you a story that you are forcing yourself to believe.

short answer - no. I've no interest in proving anything to anyone other than myself. Basically if you want to find proof of the paranormal, start looking. If you've no interest in challenging your view then you aren't a skeptic. Youre a cynic. There is a difference.

In the meantime il go about my days like every other mentally sane individual and think openly with the utmost rationality, or as you children like to say "skepticize"

Us 'children' as in those who "have experienced severe schyzophrenia, mental breakdowns and surreal hallucinations"?

I bow to your superior insults ... i mean argument.

Ryanzo

Good boy yourself.

Oh i made another funny.