Skeptic Vs Believers?, debate Options

[lance11]

Hi to All..
Due to resent debates with skeptics on the subject of the paranormal, its got me thinking of science and prove and creditblity!!
The Skeptics argument is that if things are not proven by scienctific terms they don't exists! Which is fair enough to a certain extent.. but where do we draw the line?

For eg, you can not prove in scienctific terms how much you love your partner or mother or father or dogs or cats etc etc..!

But yet this love does exists! so if we apply this concept to the paranormal or the unknow laws of physics, that science has yet to discover, there will never be no prove...


I also am very confused when skeptics claim they need prove for something to exisit (lab conditions with regorous testing) thats fair enough, if it will reveal the truth, but will it and will it ever be enough to convice the skeptical mind..

I myself am skeptical (I think everyone is to an extent) we have got to be, to rule out obvious things before we shout GHOST!!!!! but the skeptics (I feel don't give us credit of this) which is a shame for the research...


Science can also be very contradictory, in ways like medince, for eg I will use Bipolar and Schizophrener as my statement...

There is no know cause for the condition, it been tried and tested in strict lab conditions, on brain chemistry, still to come up with no answers as to how? Or what? cause this dreafull condition...
But yet Bipolar and Schizophrener are reconized forms of illness in their own right..!
so the science communtity has accepted that it exists, but with no prove to back it up... they have theorys!! That it could be chemical imbalance in the brain ? Could be social up bringing? but thats all..

So where do we draw the line with all this or do you all think I am rattling on?
I would much appriecate to hear
take care, Lance.

[evad_83647]

Welcome Lance.
We have had a previous skeptics vs believers debate here. You might want to read that.
You bring some good arguments with you. I like the way you describe us skeptics too.

A true skeptic has the abitily to change thier thinking when presented with inrefutable evidence. Do not confuse skeptics with nay sayers, nothing will ever be enough proof to disuade their beliefs.

I lean towards science to get my answers. But as you stated science is an art and there is more that we don't know than what we do know.

Observation is one of the inputs I use to form my opinions. I have seen, felt and otherwised experienced a lot of what has been said in these forums, yet I am still a skeptic. It has not been proven to me one way or another whether ghosts or UFO's or Bigfeet... exist. I do not trust my own observations, I have no scientific proof, and I'm not ready to jump on a paranormal band wagon. Therefore I say it is possible because it hasn't been disproven and on the other side of the coin I say we still may find the answers through other avenues.

This is the true definition of a skeptic. I am not a doubter but I am also not a believer. Believers can argue their case for why and non believers can argue their case for why not, but a true skeptic is open to either possibility.

On your bipolar example: Bi-polar behaviour is observable, repeatable and predictible. We do not know all the answers but we accept it because we can reproduce it in lab experiments and control it with medication. To my knowledge no one has been able to do that with ghosts.

Welcome to the village
Dave

[spooksareus]

Bravo Dave darling I couldn't agree more!

[lance11]

Hi Dave.
Thanks for your reply, some good points. But where do we stand when EVP expriements have been tried and tested in the lab to conclude that voices are reoccuring on recording devices performed in faraday cages and doubled shielded rooms, which shield out Ham Radio waves etc?
science seems to ingnore the possiblity of an after life even when expriemements have come out in the Believers favour.

Skye lab in Scotland have been performing expriements into EVP for a long time, with some interesting results, but how come these are never public advertised for a breakthrough of if we survive death?
I sometimes feel that science can be very contredictery in its approach to the paranormal, because it doesn't fit into their physical laws at this moment..
What if maybe there are laws of physics which yet have not been discovered?
take care, lance..

[spooksareus]

Your right Lance, the scientific community does waffle a lot on findings that seem to indicate that there is life after death. There are however a few who are willing to say that they are convinced of it as well as PSI.

It has always been this way though, todays "scientific fact" may be fodder for tomarrows laugh track ...
Spooks

This post has been edited by spooksareus: Feb 7 2007, 07:06 PM

[MoonChild]

What is science today but a bunch of "illussions" of yesterday!

[spiritalk]

I have to say in their defence, current scientists are using University departments to examine mediumship with some interesting people. They are also doing ESP studies.

And if we consider the experiments like the water one done by Dr Omoto we can see where there are energies at work that have not yet been identified. And Dr. Grad, a Canadian biologist, found the same thing with healing energies on plants.

[spooksareus]

True, I have had email conversations with Dr. Dean Radin about those studies (he's conducted many of them himself) and he feels very strongly that the existence of PSI has been already been proved.

[lance11]

I have to say in their defence, current scientists are using University departments to examine mediumship with some interesting people. They are also doing ESP studies.

And if we consider the experiments like the water one done by Dr Omoto we can see where there are energies at work that have not yet been identified. And Dr. Grad, a Canadian biologist, found the same thing with healing energies on plants.

Thats sounds interesting, have you got a link to these expriements, I would be most gratefull, cheers,lance.

[plindboe]

Hi to All..
Due to resent debates with skeptics on the subject of the paranormal, its got me thinking of science and prove and creditblity!!
The Skeptics argument is that if things are not proven by scienctific terms they don't exists! Which is fair enough to a certain extent.. but where do we draw the line?

First of all, I've never heard any skeptic or scientist saying such a thing before. Second of all, proof belongs to math and logic, science deals with evidence, not proof.

Instead of complaining, get an education in science, realize what science is and how it's done, conduct research and be the first paranormal investigator to publish your research in peer-reviewed journals. It's so easy taking the true believer path, complaining and bickering that your favorite beliefs are not accepted, while, remaining ignorant over why they are.

[spiritalk]

The most recent university study was conducted at the University of Arizona. Dr. Amoto (sp) recently published a paper re: the effects of moods (emotions) on the water we drink. Dr. Grad's study at McGill University in Montreal is much older.

God bless, J

[plindboe]

The most recent university study was conducted at the University of Arizona. Dr. Amoto (sp) recently published a paper re: the effects of moods (emotions) on the water we drink.

Poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed pseudoscientific studies, by a non-scientist who bought his credentials at a diploma mill doesn't really cut it. His name is Masaru Emoto btw. Why would you base your world view on a guy whose name you can't even spell?

[lance11]

Hi plindboe,
You are the type of Skeptic I incounter time and time again, shouting the same things as the ones before you (pseudoscientific studies) nothing will even be good enough because the paranormal does not fit into the physical laws.

A true Skeptic will indeed be open minded to except other possiblitys when all fails, but the majority of worldly claimed skeptics (in reality) are point blank ingorant to fact and think that us believers in other demisions are loonys and are one big joke for even thinking such thoughts. are you one of them???

[Laconic Lurker]

I believe that in order to be well rounded in the paranormal field, you must be both a believer, as well as possess a certain amount of skepticism. A true skeptic also must contain a certain amount of belief. I'm not saying that they actually believe, however, they are willing to observe proof that paranormal activity does exist.

A believer in the paranormal should be skeptical until things are proven to them as well. If somebody shows you a picture with a smudge and says "Look, ghost", do you actually say "Wow, great capture", or do you look closer and see if maybe it's just a smudge on the picture from a finger coated in peanut butter? There are very few blind believers that I know of. Everybody I have seen on here, for the most part, has been willing to scrutinize, and be scrutinized.

The skeptics that I have seen don't run around stating point blankly "paranormal does not exist... Period." They are saying "I don't believe in paranormal, because up to this point, either science hasn't validated the existence, or, I myself have not experienced paranormal activity". They are leaving it open for people to provide proof, and if the proper proof is presented, they will be willing to change their mind.

[Laurie Ann]

I believe that in order to be well rounded in the paranormal field, you must be both a believer, as well as possess a certain amount of skepticism. A true skeptic also must contain a certain amount of belief. I'm not saying that they actually believe, however, they are willing to observe proof that paranormal activity does exist.

A believer in the paranormal should be skeptical until things are proven to them as well. If somebody shows you a picture with a smudge and says "Look, ghost", do you actually say "Wow, great capture", or do you look closer and see if maybe it's just a smudge on the picture from a finger coated in peanut butter? There are very few blind believers that I know of. Everybody I have seen on here, for the most part, has been willing to scrutinize, and be scrutinized.

The skeptics that I have seen don't run around stating point blankly "paranormal does not exist... Period." They are saying "I don't believe in paranormal, because up to this point, either science hasn't validated the existence, or, I myself have not experienced paranormal activity". They are leaving it open for people to provide proof, and if the proper proof is presented, they will be willing to change their mind.

~~Now THAT was worded beautifully!!!!! That was nice, Laconic Lurker...bravo!!!