117 replies to this topic

[PHANTOM MONK]

Simply put, I don't think it's my role in life to change what one is called a "skeptics mind", for any reason. Generaly it's a waste of time and unless there is some valid reason for doing it, I can think of things I much rather be doing that would be a lot more fun.

[PhenomInvestigator]

OMPRDave, on Jul 13 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

I feel quite the opposite...it's the believers that are going to be feeling the pressure of having supply evidence that holds water. A skeptic doesn't have anything to prove, whereas a believer has the entire burden of proof to show people that what they have captured is indeed unexplainable. And i have seen a marked sift in people posting on alot of forums who think rationally and skeptical versus those who jump straight on the paranormal bandwagon.

Perhaps we should be sure we're all saying the same thing when we use the term 'skeptic.'

For me, a skeptic is one who wants evidence before accepting something as true. Those who engage in research should be skeptics by this definition. I separate this term with 'pseudoskeptic' however.

The pseudoskeptic is probably what many people think of when they hear or read the term skeptic. The pseudoskeptic is as much a practitioner of beliefs as any so-called 'believer.' The belief system of the pseudosketpic is monastic materialism based in a belief of the supremacy of science. This is not science but is indeed 'scientism', yet another belief system.

We recently had a discussion on this forum regarding open and closed-mindedness. I submit that we find closed-minded individuals in both camps. These people will never agree. There mutual dogmas virtually guarantee that.

I do think there is much common ground between factions who are indeed 'open-minded', the definition of which is anyone willing to change their belief systems in the presence of reasonable evidence and who avoids deciding on the validity of such evidence solely based on a prior beliefs.

Final note: not all evidence can be produced in a lab. Experience counts as evidence as well. In fact, if we are dealing with non-material and non-physical events, it may well be the case that expecting to 'prove' such things materialistically will turn out to have been quite foolish in future retrospect.

I would recommend Dr. Charles T. Tart's new book "The End of Materialism" for a well-written and highly readable overview on the difference between science and scientism from a scientist who has made it his life's work to follow a spiritual path and truly sees ways that science and spirituality (not religion) can integrate.

[PHANTOM MONK]

PhenomInvestigator, on Jul 27 2009, 12:51 PM, said:

OMPRDave, on Jul 13 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

I feel quite the opposite...it's the believers that are going to be feeling the pressure of having supply evidence that holds water. A skeptic doesn't have anything to prove, whereas a believer has the entire burden of proof to show people that what they have captured is indeed unexplainable. And i have seen a marked sift in people posting on alot of forums who think rationally and skeptical versus those who jump straight on the paranormal bandwagon.

Perhaps we should be sure we're all saying the same thing when we use the term 'skeptic.'

For me, a skeptic is one who wants evidence before accepting something as true. Those who engage in research should be skeptics by this definition. I separate this term with 'pseudoskeptic' however.

The pseudoskeptic is probably what many people think of when they hear or read the term skeptic. The pseudoskeptic is as much a practitioner of beliefs as any so-called 'believer.' The belief system of the pseudosketpic is monastic materialism based in a belief of the supremacy of science. This is not science but is indeed 'scientism', yet another belief system.

We recently had a discussion on this forum regarding open and closed-mindedness. I submit that we find closed-minded individuals in both camps. These people will never agree. There mutual dogmas virtually guarantee that.

I do think there is much common ground between factions who are indeed 'open-minded', the definition of which is anyone willing to change their belief systems in the presence of reasonable evidence and who avoids deciding on the validity of such evidence solely based on a prior beliefs.

Final note: not all evidence can be produced in a lab. Experience counts as evidence as well. In fact, if we are dealing with non-material and non-physical events, it may well be the case that expecting to 'prove' such things materialistically will turn out to have been quite foolish in future retrospect.

I would recommend Dr. Charles T. Tart's new book "The End of Materialism" for a well-written and highly readable overview on the difference between science and scientism from a scientist who has made it his life's work to follow a spiritual path and truly sees ways that science and spirituality (not religion) can integrate.

Excellent point, well stated.

[tommyhancock]

this reply is to the OP.i am a believer,as you are,but for the most part i have a skeptical outlook on paranormal in all fields but ghosts.that being said,no YOU can not change a skeptics mind,but a skeptics mind can change.i really wanna read the book phantom monk recommended,maybe this kind of thinking could lead to more of a mutual understanding, which is more what it sounds like youre frustrated about. to change their mind it would take an insane experience,not just a story or picture of one,or insanely unarguable evidence.obviously no skeptic has seen such things or they would believe unless theyre bordering cynicism

[Acifogs09]

from personal experience, i agree that the ladies at babydolls excel, although still not recalling the particulars. Carol, maybe if you went and saw for yourself the selflessness these young ladies exude... you.. might... change... your... mind...?

[ohreally?]

If you understand why you are skeptical of this photo then you'll understand why skeptics are skeptical of the strange things you believe


You can change any skeptics mind, but the standard of evidence has to be very good.

[Vampchick21]

The Weekly World News, while highly amusing, is hardly something anyone would use as a source of evidence of the paranormal, nor would any self respecting investigator into paranormal phenomena be caught dead producing weird tabloid photoshops.

Please do not sit there and equate paranormal investigators and the evidence and data they find with the Weekly World News and it's ilk! That's just plain insulting.

[Laurie Ann]

ohreally?, on Mar 25 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

If you understand why you are skeptical of this photo then you'll understand why skeptics are skeptical of the strange things you believe


You can change any skeptics mind, but the standard of evidence has to be very good.

Seriously?? I just can't comment on that one.....wasted energy

[ohreally?]

Laurie Ann, on Mar 25 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

ohreally?, on Mar 25 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

If you understand why you are skeptical of this photo then you'll understand why skeptics are skeptical of the strange things you believe


You can change any skeptics mind, but the standard of evidence has to be very good.

Seriously?? I just can't comment on that one.....wasted energy

The point is neither one of you believe it the photo to be real right- well that's what skepticism is all about. It's not excepting something at face value.

[ohreally?]

ohreally?, on Mar 25 2010, 09:13 PM, said:

Laurie Ann, on Mar 25 2010, 08:00 PM, said:

ohreally?, on Mar 25 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

If you understand why you are skeptical of this photo then you'll understand why skeptics are skeptical of the strange things you believe


You can change any skeptics mind, but the standard of evidence has to be very good.

Seriously?? I just can't comment on that one.....wasted energy

The point is neither one of you believe it the photo to be real right- well that's what skepticism is all about. It's not excepting something at face value.

Perhaps this will make the point clearer.

Quote

Lady Gaga Is Probably Not An Illuminati Shill
Conspiracy theorists have seized on Lady Gaga’s latest music video, “Telephone,” as evidence that she’s a mind-controlled agent of the CIA. If that sounds like a stretch, consider that VigilantCitizen.com has raked in over 1,300 comments on its conspiratorial analysis of “Telephone.” Hundreds of thousands of people have likely read it, and perhaps many believed.

Vigilant Citizen’s warning to America is that Gaga and other singers have been given the full Manchurian-Candidate treatment under the CIA’s “Monarch Program” and unleashed on pop culture to rep the devil-worshipping Illuminati. The wider goal of the conspiracy remains hazy, but it has to do with seducing and softening up the hoi polloi with a mind-controlling pageantry of outrageous sex, decadence, murder, madness, and technological excess — all elements in “Telephone” and preparatory ingredients in a transhumanist, authoritarian New World Order.

More http://www.randi.org...nati-shill.html

[Vampchick21]

No, posting the random and rather funny conspiracy theory surrounding the Illuminati and their supposed control over certain pop stars does not exactly make your point clearer, unless you are somehow equating serious paranormal researchers and investigators with conspiracy theorists and The Weekly World News.

If you have an actual point that doesn't involve jpegs of the front cover of a defunct supermarket tabloid and copy/paste of crazy conspiracy theories, please make it.

Edited by Vampchick21, 25 March 2010 - 09:56 PM.

[ohreally?]

Vampchick21, on Mar 25 2010, 10:52 PM, said:

No, posting the random and rather funny conspiracy theory surrounding the Illuminati and their supposed control over certain pop stars does not exactly make your point clearer, unless you are somehow equating serious paranormal researchers and investigators with conspiracy theorists and The Weekly World News.

If you have an actual point that doesn't involve jpegs of the front cover of a defunct supermarket tabloid and copy/paste of crazy conspiracy theories, please make it.

The point is the evidence presented by the New Age community is not compelling nor persuasive just like the Clinton and alien photo and the claim by CT'ers of Lady Gaga is not compelling or persuasive. You can change a skeptics mind but the evidence has got to be a whole lot better than what's been presented so far.

[Vampchick21]

The New Age community?

Excuse me?

I'm pretty sure that there are more than a few serious researchers and investigators who would be highly insulted at that title. Hell, I know I am.

Way to lump everyone under the crazy umbrella. That really makes you a compelling person to have a discussion or debate with.

Edited by Vampchick21, 26 March 2010 - 09:47 AM.

[ohreally?]

Vampchick21, on Mar 26 2010, 09:33 AM, said:

The New Age community?

Excuse me?

I'm pretty sure that there are more than a few serious researchers and investigators who would be highly insulted at that title. Hell, I know I am.

Way to lump everyone under the crazy umbrella. That really makes you a compelling person to have a discussion or debate with.

Whose being offensive? It wasn't me that lumped everyone crazy. New Age does not imply or state directly a condition of being crazy [ insanity] to be clear. If you know your history of the recent paranormal you'd realise that all present paranormal interest got renewed starting with the New Age movement of the mid 1960s. The umbrella term New Age does encompass all of the paranormal though.
But really what does this have to do with Can a Skeptic Change their Mind ?

[Vampchick21]

What does posting a jpeg of the Weekly World News have to do with evidence?