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
Debunking skeptics .....
Options
Comments
-
Point is, the 'believers' keep themselves to themselves and dont pretend they know everything. This subforum could learn some lessons from that.
But unless they've done research {in your own words} then they are pretending to know something, otherwise:If you arent researching the subject - believer or cynic - then you arent in any position to debate it, as one wouldnt actually know what one was talking about.Another thing you are (very widely) missing is that this subforum is for those who have proof that the paranormal isnt true. Instead what do we get? Talk of ESP, mediums and spirituality. That smells like a fail to me.
So then, is the main forum for those who have proof the paranormal is true? If so, there doesn't seem to be much to go on other than mostly explainable phenomena. Or have I gotten that wrong too?
Also, your very defensive & condescending for someone who I'm just posting with arn't you? Every post of yours tells me what Im missing, how wrong I am, & other assorted shots across my bow. Chill out man, nobody is out to cause any guff. I'm just interested in why you brand certain skeptics as armchair skeptics, while believers who have done no research arn't similarly described by you
0 -
-
But unless they've done research {in your own words} then they are pretending to know something, otherwise:
Please stop the baiting. its a bit crass tbh. Its 'debate' you are meant to be involved in here.So then, is the main forum for those who have proof the paranormal is true? If so, there doesn't seem to be much to go on other than mostly explainable phenomena. Or have I gotten that wrong too?
no - its a place for people to share paranormal experiences they may have had. Really - You actually needed that explained to you? Does that tell you anything?Also, your very defensive & condescending for someone who I'm just posting with arn't you?
No. Im just quite able to see through the rubbish that gets posted though. its really easy to say someting doesnt exist because someone else told you so. its a bit harder to go out there and try to find info that correlates with one side or the other. The 'Skeptics' on this sub forum are of the former rather than the latter.Every post of yours tells me what Im missing, how wrong I am, & other assorted shots across my bow. Chill out man, nobody is out to cause any guff.
Thats the way debates work. You say its one way, I say its another.I'm just interested in why you brand certain skeptics as armchair skeptics, while believers who have done no research arn't similarly described by you
Im only after explaining that to you. Oh and dont get me wrong - I wouldnt brand any self respecting skeptic of being an 'armchair' skeptic. its the cynical type who have nothing to back up their view other than they read it on the internet, or their mammy told them ghosts werent real - theres many reasons why they might ridicule the paranormal, but none of it is actually based on their own education in the subject - those are the 'armchair skeptics'. When someone has a paranormal experience and reports it on here, thats a completely different story. The main difference is, theyve had some form of experience that they are tryign to figure out. Mr Armchair on the other hand, is just here to ridicule and more than likely try to make themselves feel intelligent.0 -
You really should be asking a 'believer' these things. I have no idea why you are asking me.So again, people who believe in the paranormal do so because its their own perogitive to do so, regardless of what if any research they've done on the subject? Whilst on the other hand, sceptics, are branded as 'armchair sceptics' for having the very same faith but at the opposite end of the spectrum? Why does the belief in the supernatural give you the perogitive to believe, while skepticism of it means your labeled with a derogatory term? It doesn't sound very rational at all, perhaps you can better explain why you see one groups faith exonerates them over another where research hasn't been done?
I'm just trying to see if I have your take on the subject right by asking questions which summarise your opinion. Who am I making slag someone off? I'm open to correction, they are not leading questions...if I misunderstood you then correct me0 -
Please stop the baiting. its a bit crass tbh. Its 'debate' you are meant to be involved in here.
Fine, if tripping yourself up means I'm crass then so be it. If seeing you contradict yourself means I'm baiting, then so be it. I can only ask the questions, keep avoiding them if you so wishno - its a place for people to share paranormal experiences they may have had. Really - You actually needed that explained to you? Does that tell you anything?
But as I'm sure a lot of folks on that forum havn't done any research into the paranormal, how in your own words are they able to discuss it without having done any research? Its a forum for discussion of the paranormal & paranormal experiences, much the same as this forum is here to provide skeptics & cynics a platform for discussion.
I was just curious as to why you label non believers as 'armchair' skeptics, while you don't apply similarly derogatory tags to believers who havn't done any research on whatever it is they believe in. I've asked you that now a few times, & you have yet to answer it.No. Im just quite able to see through the rubbish that gets posted though. its really easy to say someting doesnt exist because someone else told you so. its a bit harder to go out there and try to find info that correlates with one side or the other. The 'Skeptics' on this sub forum are of the former rather than the latter.
But yet its perfectly ok to believe in something, 'because someone else told you so'? Thats a bit biased don't you think? Why does the burden of proof {on this forum} lie with the non believers?Im only after explaining that to you.
Apart from oddly abrasive retorts & evading questions by getting defensive, you've explained nothing.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
But his definition of a "self respecting skeptic" appears to be "someone who does their own research". Someone who reads others' studies and analysis and forms an opinion on it is seemingly *not* a skeptic.
And yet, he also lambastes as "professional skeptics" the very people who do research... lol...
Don't get me wrong, I still think the argument falls heavily into the double standards category. I'd agree that a baseless opinion isn't worth a dime, but that has to ring true for both sides which I just wanted to clarify. Anything after that & I'd need flame retardant clothing & tbh I really don't consider flaming/bashing fun so I'll watch from the sidelines from now on
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
hey dave, learn to read the thread. Once again you are mixing up what various posters have said and attributing them to one individual. Thats just pure lazy. Ive never mentioned 'professional skeptics' nor lambasted them.
Then again, if you cant win an argument, just make up bull****e ... right?
And yes - someone who reads other peoples studies ('read' and yet not understand) and dont bother looking at theses things for themselves arent really qualified to debate the subject in much detail if you ask me. Bit like talking football to a football fan who never kicked a ball.
What about people who read other people's studies and do understand them? Are they still unqualified to debate it? I assume you're the one who decides on whether or not someone understands a study BTW (i.e. if they disagree with you, they probably don't understand it)
It's handy for you that your slogan for your group is "common sense, not science", because it means the bar for considering yourself qualified enough to conduct research is low (you just have to have common sense!).
If I went out tonight with a proton pack, looking for ectoplasm, would that qualify me to have an opinion?0 -
That doesnt take away from the reality of armchair skeptics. I dont care what believers believe - Im not talking about them.
In other words 'no comment'. You should go into politics man, thats riddled with double standards too
*Queue the inevitable shot across my bow stating I'm putting words in your mouth/baiting you into slagging someone off/my lack of understanding etc0 -
-
-
No, they are met with such hostility because they are lazy. James Randi gets his kicks from exposing magicians as frauds even though most of his career was spent as a magician. How lazy is that?
Not particularly lazy, but then even if it was "lazy" why would that be a problem?
When I was in college one of my professors would turn up in basically a dressing gown and slippers, he would give his lecture and he would then return back home to what ever the feck he was doing that required a dressing gown and slippers (sleeping probably).
While he was with us he would assess our work and point out the problems in it. His most common feedback was "That won't compile, can you see why?"
Now frankly it would be ridiculous for me to turn around to him and say "But but but you are so lazy!". How lazy he was had nothing to do with whether my C++ program would or would not compile. It also had nothing to do with whether he knew that my C++ program would or would not compile.
This charge that skeptics are being too lazy is both a red herring and again an fascinating insight into the mind and motivations of those who subscribe to the idea that there is something amazing to find in paranormal research.
It is the fact that skeptics don't agree with you and therefore don't bother devoting significant time and resources into this delusion, that pisses you off so much. Again they are ruining the fun by not subscribing to the collective delusion that if we just keep looking we will find something exciting and amazing and paranormal.The truth of the matter Zombrex is the source of consciousness is very elusive. No amount of saying we understand this or that from studies of the brain on your behalf masks the fact that we actually have no evidence that consciousness as in self awareness stems from the brain.
You keep saying that and you keep ignoring every poster who has informed you that the only evidence we have supports this hypothesis.
If you want to argue that the evidence is as yet not strong enough to conclusively support this hypothesis, or even argue that we really don't know what consciousness is well enough to define properly even what we should be looking for, fair enough.
But then you don't do that. You again tip your hat to your real motivation. What ever the weakness of our understanding of how the brain does or doesn't form consciouness, it is a million times better than any support that the brain doesn't form consciousness, that something else does.
You are very similar in your tactics in this regard to a Creationist criticizing holes in evolutionary understanding while turning a blind eye to the fact that Creationism itself is just one big massive hole.
We have nothing to support the idea that consciousness is produced by anything other than the brain, yet that is a notion you seem particularly fond of. Why? Because it is exciting if true. Which of course has nothing to do with whether it is true.
Just like most subscribers to mumbo-jumbo theories you reveal yourself by the inconsistent to which you criticism or are skeptical to concepts that you do support and concepts you don't support.
If you were being consistent what ever issue you had with the holes in our understanding of how the brain may produce consciousness you would admit that there is nothing to support any other competing hypothesis.You brought up the placebo effect earlier, well think about the placebo effect in depth for a minute. Significant numbers of people in both pharmaceutical and psychological studies report their symptoms alleviated by thinking that the sugar cube or suggestion is going to make them better. Try and explain that in terms of neuron cells firing away in response to their environment.
A) How do you not that can't be explained by neurons firing away. You have rejected a non-existent explanation because you have asserted that something cannot happen. How very Creationist of you (Creationists are fond of saying that what ever the process scientists think created life, which we don't know yet, it couldn't have happened, which is odd considering we don't know what it is yet)
How do you explain it, and why are you less skeptical to that explanation than to a "materialistic" explanation?Vague statements about humans being susceptible to suggestion and humans inventing things to fill in gaps don't cut it in these examples, pain goes away and people who could not leave their houses due to OCD get relief. Why? Is it the sugar? If not, what is the physiological change that occurs to effect the psychological change?
I don't know, but I would guess it is related to stress. Placebos only seem to work if the patient is aware they received a placebo. Believing you have taken something that will work, even if you know it is a placebo since most people these days know placebos work, can greatly lower stress levels. And we know that stress causes a huge amount of physical exhaustion in the human body.
What evidence do you have that it is related to something paranormal?You can't claim we know why certain mind-brain effects happen when we don't understand their cause.
I don't claim we know. You are the one who likes claiming things that cannot be supported.
Right now you seem to be suggesting the effects of the placebo are evidence that the brain and mind are separate, but you only have an argument from ignorance to support this and the claim that we know it can't be a physical process.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement