Howdy Guest!  / Create an account
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
article from 1/2012...why skeptics are wrong
#1
Long article and I'm sure at least three here won't read all of it but it is interesting.
http://blog.happierabroad.com/2012/01/wh...ormal.html

A partial paragraph: "Even if a highly credible source with a long history of accuracy suddenly makes a paranormal claim or a claim against an established view, they automatically dismiss it as bunk before even looking into it. If they do look into it, it will not be to learn the truth about it, but to debunk it. They will even deny evidence from scientific experiments as well. All the while, they tout, "Show me the evidence. Where's the evidence?" Yet when they are shown the evidence, they merely dismiss it or ignore it, acting as though they heard nothing, then go back to repeating that there's no evidence."

Sound like anybody we know?

Reply
#2
Traditionally, research in this area has been characterized by incompetence in setting up properly controlled experiments and evaluating statistical data, deception and fraud. When properly controlled experiments are done, they have usually yielded negative results, i.e., have been unable to demonstrate a single clear case of psychic power or paranormal phenomena. Positive studies are generally explicable by chance (one expects by chance that there will be periodic unusual runs of "psychic hits." But negative result studies, such as the one done by Richard C. Sprinthall and Barry S. Lubetkin published in the Journal of Psychology (vol. 60, pp. 313-18) and which was carefully and properly designed, are universally rejected by true believers in psi. Researchers who claim to have found positive results usually systematically ignore or rationalize their own studies if they don't support their claims. Many, if not most, psi researchers allow optional starting and optional stopping. All psi researchers limit their research to investigating parlor tricks (guessing the number or suit of a playing card, or "guess what I am looking at") and parlor tricksters. Many are fascinated by numbers and experiment with another kind of parlor trick turned high-tech. Instead of having people use their thoughts to change traffic signals from red to green, they have them try to influence random number generators in computers. When the researchers get a bit of statistical strangeness they speculate it is due to paranormal powers.
http://www.genpaku.org/skepticj/parapsy.html
Sheldrake
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/...henomenon/
Dean Radin
http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress....ean-radin/
Charles Tart
I can't say for certain that Tart lacks personal integrity and seriousness. It appears that he is a liar and a deceiver, but it may be that he is just self-deceived and overzealous. Yet, it appears that he's not much of a scientist; he apparently knowingly omits relevant data that refute rather than confirm his ESP hypotheses; he sets up experiments in sloppily controlled ways; he rationalizes any failure to confirm his pet theories; he distorts the claims of his critics; and, he fails to respond to questions which seriously undermine the integrity of his studies.
FD do you know who the author of that was? Winston Wu WOO WOO
Are you planning on leaving the US?
I suggest you do a little research on him.
Belief bias occurs when we make illogical conclusions in order to confirm our preexisting beliefs. Belief perseverance refers to our tendency to maintain a belief even after the evidence we used to form the belief is contradicted.
Reply
#3
So now that's what the focus is on this forum? Digging up article after article about why someone who questions paranormal claims is wrong? Well here's a tip for you: don't join an internet forum if all you want is validation not explanation . Go to somewhere like Angels & Ghosts who are alllllll about pure validation, because that's clearly all you and everyone else here wants.
'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde
Reply
#4
FD if you want to learn something try this.
http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/analysiswu.pdf
Belief bias occurs when we make illogical conclusions in order to confirm our preexisting beliefs. Belief perseverance refers to our tendency to maintain a belief even after the evidence we used to form the belief is contradicted.
Reply
#5
It's clear that he doesn't want to learn anything or he wouldn't have posted a "why skeptics are wrong" article.
'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde
Reply
#6
(10-23-2014, 10:53 AM)Ysbryd Wrote: It's clear that he doesn't want to learn anything or he wouldn't have posted a "why skeptics are wrong" article.

So, does this mean it's clear that other people don't want to learn anything when they post "why believers are wrong" articles?

It works both ways - or can.
Reply
#7
I'm one of the three that won't read this. Fldinosaur is one of my favorite people and I really don't want to let him down. So I will not read it nor will I take anything seriously written by Winston "Woo" Wu. I will however address the title of this thread, directly saying skeptics are 'wrong'.

It's funny though, because I don't necessarily think believers are wrong. I think that their threshold for needing proof is lower but I have always said there are things out there that don't fit into an explainable box. I also am aware of testing, papers, and research that have been done regarding psi and the (thus far) unknown. I have strong respect for the researchers of these subjects, including JB Rhine. I also think that they all came to a point in their lives where they realized that much of their life's work hadn't yielded a whole lot. Henry Sidgwick, who founded the Society for Psychical Research admitted in his later years that the work done had not produced the results he hoped.

All these years later, and the bulk of paranormal "proof" is based on a lot of belief, but not a lot of repeatable substance. One thing that I think most can agree with--a LOT of people have experienced something that they feel is paranormal. Some of it CAN be explained. Some of it cannot (for now). But one thing is for sure--the debates between skeptics and believers will always get heated because we are human beings. What I will say in favor of the believers--the ones who aren't blinded to the point where they will not see facts offer some interesting opinions and points of view. But please understand, speaking from a skeptics point of view, that we are not your enemy. We are not trying to rain on your parade. We're just not coming to the same conclusions that you are.
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ~Philip K. Dick

http://paranormalinreview2.zohosites.com/home.html

Reply
#8
The problem with the paranormal is that you can't replicate the results. You can't make a ghost or entity reappear. That's always going to be a thorn in the side of the paranormal investigator. They consider that they have "proof," but they can't really communicate with others who expect that the scientific method be employed.

If you cannot replicate results, then you just haven't proven something, scientifically. It doesn't mean that people don't have evidence, but it does mean that their evidence is not scientific proof.
Reply
#9
It's difficult to take anyone seriously when 99.99% of photos, videos and "evp" can be and is faked. People don't like to be called out as liars in front of hundreds of strangers.

And if we set aside the inability to replicate hauntings, there is still the overwhelming fact of LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS.
'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde
Reply
#10
(10-23-2014, 09:51 PM)Ysbryd Wrote: It's difficult to take anyone seriously when 99.99% of photos, videos and "evp" can be and is faked. People don't like to be called out as liars in front of hundreds of strangers.

And if we set aside the inability to replicate hauntings, there is still the overwhelming fact of LOGICAL EXPLANATIONS.

Skeptics are sometimes guilty of assuming that just because mundane possibilities do exist, they have explained every paranormal experience. They can also be guilty of thinking that scientists are always right, or that they don't know everything, but they know almost everything.

Suppose just for a moment that some people are actually being attacked at night by invisible supernatural entities. How could anyone prove or disprove this? Scientists have defined sleep paralysis and many skeptics immediately say case closed. What if it's not?

Some people are just open to more possibilities. Sometimes that's because of personal experiences they've had.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)






About Talk Paranormal Forum

...

              Quick Links

              User Links

             ...

  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...