Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Producing the Paranormal
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Gotcha. Thanks.So you're asserting that you've known people like this, and have been able to remove possible confirmation bias to look at it objectively and determine whether or not they actually have these supposed powers?
I'd be interested to hear your justification, for this or the precognitive ones.
No, I've never known anyone like that.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
😂The only thing I wonder about is if that guy knew he was a fake or really thought he had powers.
Care to elaborate?
not really. its personal, anecdotal, and a sceptical third person can point out many holes in it which cud be explained, n the only thing ud have against it is my word. which frankly isnt very significant if you want to look at things scientifically and wanna establish them to multiple people. in short you dont have any reason to beleive me.
but its still my statement. psychics exist. and as an INDIVIDUAL i have significant amount of evidence to base it on. and what is anecdotal to a third person like you, is emperical to a first person like me.
just keep an open mind, thats all. specially when the phenomenon is question isnt indirectly being linked to potentially negetive things like organised relegion or heaven/hell etc, to try and justify them based on leaps of hollow logic.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
not really. its personal, anecdotal, and a sceptical third person can point out many holes in it which cud be explained, n the only thing ud have against it is my word. which frankly isnt very significant if you want to look at things scientifically and wanna establish them to multiple people. in short you dont have any reason to beleive me.but its still my statement. psychics exist. and as an INDIVIDUAL i have significant amount of evidence to base it on. and what is anecdotal to a third person like you, is emperical to a first person like me.
just keep an open mind, thats all. specially when the phenomenon is question isnt indirectly being linked to potentially negetive things like organised relegion or heaven/hell etc, to try and justify them based on leaps of hollow logic.
See, empirical is empirical, and anecdotal is anecdotal. Perspective shouldn't matter if it's a convincing argument...if it's logical enough to persuade you, it should be able to persuade others as well....or else you don't really have a credible claim to begin with.
You even stated yourself that holes could be poked in it by a 3rd party, so why not acknowledge those holes (or at least hear them from someone else) and see if your evidence can hold up against them? Because saying "psychics exist" is complete bunk unless it can stand up to counter-arguments. And until you critically view your beliefs, you won't be able to assert them confidently, and the rest of us won't know whether you just don't want to have your beliefs challenged for fear of being wrong, if you just hate conflict and would rather not discuss it, or if you're just stubborn in your beliefs....which you may or may not be, but what's the point of asserting something like that if you aren't going to even attempt to defend it?
And I do keep an open mind. It's why I make threads like this. From my perspective, you're the close-minded one because you aren't willing to put your beliefs up to a critical eye. Not believing in something doesn't = not being open-minded. Not questioning and challenging beliefs does.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
See, empirical is empirical, and anecdotal is anecdotal. Perspective shouldn't matter if it's a convincing argument...if it's logical enough to persuade you, it should be able to persuade others as well....or else you don't really have a credible claim to begin with.You even stated yourself that holes could be poked in it by a 3rd party, so why not acknowledge those holes (or at least hear them from someone else) and see if your evidence can hold up against them? Because saying "psychics exist" is complete bunk unless it can stand up to counter-arguments. And until you critically view your beliefs, you won't be able to assert them confidently, and the rest of us won't know whether you just don't want to have your beliefs challenged for fear of being wrong, if you just hate conflict and would rather not discuss it, or if you're just stubborn in your beliefs....which you may or may not be, but what's the point of asserting something like that if you aren't going to even attempt to defend it?
And I do keep an open mind. It's why I make threads like this. From my perspective, you're the close-minded one because you aren't willing to put your beliefs up to a critical eye. Not believing in something doesn't = not being open-minded. Not questioning and challenging beliefs does.
i wont go into answering all that. its imply that the perceived HOLES can only be explained due to pointless planning to fool me and ONLY ME. which would have to deal with the occurance of the most unpredictable situation and would have to be thorough enough to last for YEARS with no purpose in sight. it wud require significant amounts of time of interaction with me of several people who are always well coordinated and know me inside out.
again, its personal.
edit. didnt feal like there was a need to reveal all that.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
i wont go into answering all that. its imply that the perceived HOLES can only be explained due to pointless planning to fool me and ONLY ME. which would have to deal with the occurance of the most unpredictable situation and would have to be thorough enough to last for YEARS with no purpose in sight. it wud require significant amounts of time of interaction with me of several people who are always well coordinated and know me inside out.
No, that's a decent start. Don't feel bad for sharing it. That's the kind of info I was talking about when I wanted you to share the details of your experiences.
I'm not sure if you think I'm going to pounce on you now because I believe differently, or what. My point is to understand peoples' beliefs, and occasionally turn a critical eye to them in order to further everyone's understanding. I'm not in the business of attacking beliefs for no better reason than because I disagree. But we can only get to the truth by critically analyzing both sides, which was my point all along.
Anyway, those are some bold psychic claims. If you'd like, I'd be interested to hear the circumstances surrounding your encounters with these psychics, and how you came to hear these various predictions.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, that's a decent start. Don't feel bad for sharing it. That's the kind of info I was talking about when I wanted you to share the details of your experiences.I'm not sure if you think I'm going to pounce on you now because I believe differently, or what. My point is to understand peoples' beliefs, and occasionally turn a critical eye to them in order to further everyone's understanding. I'm not in the business of attacking beliefs for no better reason than because I disagree. But we can only get to the truth by critically analyzing both sides, which was my point all along.
Anyway, those are some bold psychic claims. If you'd like, I'd be interested to hear the circumstances surrounding your encounters with these psychics, and how you came to hear these various predictions.
yea, about that. wud u mind editting the parts u quoted? just that i dont wana announce it to the world. ur right theyr bold, but then again, there is documentation etc involved. death certificates n the like. but as i said, i have no reason to substantiate or go into it. its quite close to home n personal. i was just trying to say for a FACT that psychics exist. im not extremely happy with the realisation either. n i was alwasy a sceptic{Still am} never beleived in this stuff. but being sceintific means looking at evidence. n theres evidence.
anyway, please edit ur post.
Er, ok. You don't have to reveal personal info to describe the psychic encounter though. But if you really don't want to go into it, that's fine.
I'll just echo your advice of remaining open-minded. Any documented attempt at proving psychic power has utterly failed, and most known psychics have been formally debunked by numerous sources. I'm happy to hear you remain skeptical and require evidence for belief, but many times their methods are aimed at confounding normal logic unless you understand their tactics and methods. If you still remain convinced, good for you...I'm sure the reasons are valid. But always remain open.
...
You also mentioned things like this not being negative or tied to organized religion. Let me reiterate that any belief, in a paranomral force, God, or organized religion, isn't negative. But they all have the potential to be. And the number of fake psychics who prey upon peoples' credulity and willigness to believe is a perfect example of this. My goal isn't to attack but to question, in order to pursue a form of truth that is agreeable with reason. Debunking claims that are unsupported is part of this, because if it is inherently false it has the potential for negative consequences, even though many cases are not like this (yours among them, likely).
Er, ok. You don't have to reveal personal info to describe the psychic encounter though. But if you really don't want to go into it, that's fine.I'll just echo your advice of remaining open-minded. Any documented attempt at proving psychic power has utterly failed, and most known psychics have been formally debunked by numerous sources. I'm happy to hear you remain skeptical and require evidence for belief, but many times their methods are aimed at confounding normal logic unless you understand their tactics and methods. If you still remain convinced, good for you...I'm sure the reasons are valid. But always remain open.
well it isnt so much concerned with ME as a person as other people. i dont have a right to talk about the lives of other people. n i hold those people dear.{even if that sentiment isnt reciprocated 🙁 }
lol, if it was "ME" that was that special id be actively trying to take control of the entire world and purge it of its hypocritical corruption n suffering. on top of researching physical theories over theories to advance science. ALAS beggars cant be choosers 😄 😛 . plus i wudnt have a problem with bearing all n giving hard evidence etc.
yea, because very few special people in their right mind would wanna advertise their gift. just like no normal buddha would like to show off to other people about his/her state of nirvana/enlightenmet. because showing of is not part of being enlightened. im always open.
john constantine had a nice quote "beleive everything, DOUBT EVERYTHING"
...
You also mentioned things like this not being negative or tied to organized religion. Let me reiterate that any belief, in a paranomral force, God, or organized religion, isn't negative. But they all have the potential to be. And the number of fake psychics who prey upon peoples' credulity and willigness to believe is a perfect example of this. My goal isn't to attack but to question, in order to pursue a form of truth that is agreeable with reason. Debunking claims that are unsupported is part of this, because if it is inherently false it has the potential for negative consequences, even though many cases are not like this (yours among them, likely).
over 99% of claimed psychics are frauds. besides, for the overwhelmingly greater part, i do not think humanity requires psychics to solve its problems either. n to top it off, if a person has vastness of mind enough to have psychic insight, theyd atleast have insight enough to know that.
also, you would be surprised as to how easily "gifted" people themselves can fall prey to the grasps of organised relegion. i guess some evils really dont differentiate between their victims. and that is also the reason why sumthings like divination/tarot/pentagrams etc {in the few genuine instances} can work. it isnt the PRACTICE itself that exists, as percieved, but it is the ability of the person doing it and "beleiving" in the practice.
reguardless, this is a screwed up topic.
Being a psychic doesn't = being enlightened. Saying "they don't want to be known" doesn't equal proof, nor is it anything but a scapegoat for evidence. If it actually existed, I'd like to think we would've managed at least 1 test in the course of human history that objectively asserts evidence for belief. The common phrase among the credulous is "an absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence"...fair enough, but it's also not rational grounds for belief.
Your tacit acceptence of things like divination and tarot also make you anything but a skeptic, despite your claims to the contrary. It still seems like you're open to belief, but not to questioning that which you believe...since you're very quick to say "well sure, 99% of the time..." but you will neither offer evidence nor field critical questions about teh 1% you consider valid.
And I'm not sure what you mean about a person "believing" in some sort of power, and that making it more likely to happen. A self-fulfilling prophecy, perhaps, where people will believe what they want to regardless of the methods involved. But that's my point...it's not the paranomral phnomenon that's true, it's that the people want to believe and form the argument to fit their beliefs.
no being a psychih makes u less egocentric. simply being able to see sum1 else's point of view firsthand isnt sumthing every1 can do. you either learn to grow from it/become open mineded. or alternately, go mad/hate /become indifferent towards others. either way, u know more than an average man, not enlightened but still
. that much is true. im not saying it is proof. and i do not tacitly accept divination/tarot etc. but there is atleast one instance of this type that to me can not be accounted for by purely physical. and more for beleiving that its the person who us unique.
in so far as the BELEIF of the person goes. ill only say this, emotional states have an affect on how these things manifest themselves. a gifted person who BELEIVES truly or has faith or is mentally disturbed at times can make things happen. that is all, it isnt the CONTENT of beleif or faith that causes it but the emotional states associated with it.
in so far as experiments etc go. i dunno. a possibble explanation is that those who have do not share the experiments with us{both the nazia and russians have had definite and rather huge experiments/research into this. ofcourse OFFICIALLY they say they found nuthing, but based on my personal expirience, i have reason to doubt. i cud be wrong though}
You still dodged the question. "They understand things we don't." Ok. Fine (though that seems dubious as well). But it still doesn't explain away the lack of an objective example.
A popular escape clause for people who believe in, say, remote viewing (but you could insert any number of beliefs) is that it won't happen in a controlled setting because it is in the presence of people who do not believe, and so their negative energy causes the experiment to fail.
Right. 😐
I understand how a person with a positive outlook toward completing something will be more likely to succeed. But explain to me how an emotional state has a physical effect on an outcome or power. It's complete bullocks, because thought doesn't have any tangible affect on the physical world except indirectly through our actions and intrinsic cognitive state. Not only does that kind of claim lack empirical evidence, but it's also just not a reasonable argument and is only advocated by intuitive or emotional belief systems that don't require proof.
And once again, you have your "this one instance" but you aren't willing to extrapolate or open the idea to questioning. That's the very definition of close-minded, and makes it impossible to have discussion.
In lieu of being able to actually discuss this stuff, I'd reccommend many of the works of James Randi or Michael Shermer. I have a feeling their explanations of cold reading and/or the way the human mind perceives patterns would be able to debunk many of your beliefs. You'll probably claim otherwise, or get upset that I'm asserting this so confidently....but without knowing what your beliefs actually are (and why you believe them) I can't say for sure, only make educated guesses. But it's quite obvious, at least from where I'm sitting, that you aren't familiar with many of he counter-arguments to your ideas.
As for government funded research, produce something tangible and credible for me to read that shows they have results and I'll consider it. Articles, books, etc...anything, really. I like to see the best counter-arguments out there, so I can compare them with my own thoughts. The American gov't did their own testing over a period of years with remote viewing and psychic reading, neither of which had any quantifiable results.
...
I hate being this harsh, but anecdotal means for belief can become epidemic. If you want me to be quiet, show me why I should be. True skepticism means looking at a claim, either for or against something, and saying "Ok, cool. Now show me why." That's all I'm trying to do. Otherwise, we've probably reached the end of any productive discussion in this thread.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Isn't that a contradiction, though?
If something is paranormal, it means it is unexplainable by science (in definition terms anyway).
It also means, if it is paranormal, that it is outside of the realms of what is deemed as 'normal'. Science is natural.
you cannot use scientific evidence which are used to function in natural (normal) environment to prove something which is 'paranormal', no?Doesn't something become 'paranormal' in eyes of people, when there are no evidence for its occurance?
The thing to keep in mind is that science is defined by method*, not by nature of proof. To insist on purely empirical evidence not only is a contradiction in terms of validating nonempirical phenomena, but then one is practicing, not science, but scientism, whose edict is basically, "Only empirical evidence counts." This is self-contradicting because there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of the sentence "Only empirical evidence counts."
This being the case: theoretically one can apply scientific method to transcendent phenomena as long as one is fair about it. That is, the tools used and the data collected should reflect the domain being studied (eg, you wouldn't use a microscope to study logic). If one can further correlate transcendent evidence with empirical evidence, all the better.
((*For simplicity's sake, scientific method can be summarized as an A-B-C format:
A: Action. This means acquiring whatever knowledge and equipment is necessary to run an experiment, including knowing how to use the equipment and knowing how to form a viable hypothesis.
B: Behold. Do the experiment, see what you get.
C: Consensus. Do the experiment again, preferably with other experimenters. If you get the same results, you can be reasonably sure that you are dealing with a real phenomenon.))
My understanding is, the statistical evidence for paranormal phenomena is compelling, but hardly convincing or rock-solid. Personally, though, I have had occurrences which appear to be best explained through paranormal phenomena, though again coincidence could not necessarily be ruled out.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You still dodged the question. "They understand things we don't." Ok. Fine (though that seems dubious as well). But it still doesn't explain away the lack of an objective example.A popular escape clause for people who believe in, say, remote viewing (but you could insert any number of beliefs) is that it won't happen in a controlled setting because it is in the presence of people who do not believe, and so their negative energy causes the experiment to fail.
Right. 😐
I understand how a person with a positive outlook toward completing something will be more likely to succeed. But explain to me how an emotional state has a physical effect on an outcome or power. It's complete bullocks, because thought doesn't have any tangible affect on the physical world except indirectly through our actions and intrinsic cognitive state. Not only does that kind of claim lack empirical evidence, but it's also just not a reasonable argument and is only advocated by intuitive or emotional belief systems that don't require proof.
And once again, you have your "this one instance" but you aren't willing to extrapolate or open the idea to questioning. That's the very definition of close-minded, and makes it impossible to have discussion.
In lieu of being able to actually discuss this stuff, I'd reccommend many of the works of James Randi or Michael Shermer. I have a feeling their explanations of cold reading and/or the way the human mind perceives patterns would be able to debunk many of your beliefs. You'll probably claim otherwise, or get upset that I'm asserting this so confidently....but without knowing what your beliefs actually are (and why you believe them) I can't say for sure, only make educated guesses. But it's quite obvious, at least from where I'm sitting, that you aren't familiar with many of he counter-arguments to your ideas.
As for government funded research, produce something tangible and credible for me to read that shows they have results and I'll consider it. Articles, books, etc...anything, really. I like to see the best counter-arguments out there, so I can compare them with my own thoughts. The American gov't did their own testing over a period of years with remote viewing and psychic reading, neither of which had any quantifiable results.
...
I hate being this harsh, but anecdotal means for belief can become epidemic. If you want me to be quiet, show me why I should be. True skepticism means looking at a claim, either for or against something, and saying "Ok, cool. Now show me why." That's all I'm trying to do. Otherwise, we've probably reached the end of any productive discussion in this thread.
sigh, im not gonna reply to all that today.
lulz. and true.
Originally posted by The MISTER
I saw one show where the police went to a psychic woman and she sketched an extremely accurate image of a suspect that they had no description for. The story seemed well publicized. I'll look for more details...
Even if you found that stuff and it turned out she produced an accurate image of the suspect it wouldn't prove anything. It would be pretty cool, certainly, but in order to prove that she had psychic powers we would have to go through all of her predictions/sketches and see what percentage turned out to be accurate.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison😮 I guess I should have added that it was supposed to be factual. Even then I've learned to be a real skeptic about anything on tv. That's why I wanted to check and see if it really happened. From what the program suggested the police were very skeptical but also very desperate and now they get her assistance continually. Still I have to be convinced with credible evidence. I haven't googled this story yet but I'm gonna check it out now...
TV show? 😐
Originally posted by The MISTER
😮 I guess I should have added that it was supposed to be factual. Even then I've learned to be a real skeptic about anything on tv. That's why I wanted to check and see if it really happened. From what the program suggested the police were very skeptical but also very desperate and now they get her assistance continually. Still I have to be convinced with credible evidence. I haven't googled this story yet but I'm gonna check it out now...
Look up Cold Reading.