NEWS - Psychologist bids to create....
Posted 24 August 2003 - 11:23 AM
I´m not saying you are wrong; I´m only saying your evidence is not very compelling. Seeing how sure you are that I am wrong, it seems you are the one who has made his mind up.
Shouldn´t the sig read: "To believers, explanations are unwelcome (to pychics exploiting those beliefs even more so), and to non-believers there is nothing to explain"?
Posted 24 August 2003 - 11:51 AM
It's funny,but I don't see myself going out of my way to visit skeptic boards and trying to push my beliefs upon those that do not believe.You have made the choice to come HERE(a paranormal board) to try and ram cynisism down the throats of those who do.BTW-the science argument is hilarious,as hardly any two scientists ever agree on anything,and when they do,there is always another scientist who comes along and shoots all sorts of holes in their theories/extrapolations.The fact-of-the-day is always shifting and changing amongst the ever-bickering scientific field.Scientific theory is great,but it is never the end-all of anything,especially what science does not even understand,and cannot measure.
Posted 25 August 2003 - 03:42 AM
But you should! Nothing like a good discussion with people that will not necessarily agree with you to keep your self-critical faculties sharp! Some of your co-moderators seem to understand that, several messageboards encourage the posting of diverging and skeptical viewpoints.
It's funny,but I don't see myself going out of my way to visit skeptic boards and trying to push my beliefs upon those that do not believe.
Scary, isn't it? No solid, comforting 'truths' there - only hypotheses, waiting to be replaced by better ones! Challenging each others views is the essence of science, and is what creates progress and gives us an ever clearer picture of reality. It is, by the way, also what created the PC through which you are having this discussion...
The fact-of-the-day is always shifting and changing amongst the ever-bickering scientific field.
Postulating unassailable truths, like you seem to do, on the other hand will only create unflexible dogmatism.
I'm not a cynic, dear SpectralSpy, just a realist. To me, reality is complex and fascinating enough without ghosts, and indeed offers quite a lot that science yet has to understand and explain - you're right on that one for sure. I am quite willing to include the idea that ghosts exist, by way of an interesting hypothesis. But I am not prepared to accept it as 'truth' on the basis of crummy evidence that I am not even allowed to question. We can't backslide into that kind of medieval church politics in 2003, can we?
Posted 25 August 2003 - 06:10 AM
I am quite willing to include the idea that ghosts exist, by way of an interesting hypothesis. But I am not prepared to accept it as 'truth' on the basis of crummy evidence that I am not even allowed to question.
Let's not go as far as to say that questions aren't allowed. The real matter, I believe, is that questions go unanswered.
Stevenedel, you are in control of your own beliefs. You will or will not make the transition. I can't speak for everyone, but I don't want any involvement with your decision. I don't want to convince you of anything. You seem to have already established a viewpoint and that is quite alright, as we are all entitled to our own.
In an earlier post you said, "Now that´s the thing that´s fascinating about paranormal believers: they are not content to believe, they want to pass off their beliefs as scientific facts. Nothing wrong with that, but if that´s what you want, you have to play by the rules of science." Well, that's not what I want. I became a member of Ghostvillage.com to share my experiences and learn from others. If I wanted to 'pass my beliefs' off in any manner, then I'd probably join a board in which there aren't many believers ie. a board unlike Ghostvillage.com.
Don't get me wrong, I hope one day someone presents the necessary information for ghosts to be accepted into the scientific community. As you mentioned before, no one has presented "a shred of solid evidence" in regards to an afterlife. We're no different than those whom believe in "God AND Allah AND Brahma, not to mention the rest of the 1,000+ Hindu pantheon". We establish our beliefs for our own reasons. There are many belief systems that conflict with another...that's life and has been for quite some time now.
Posted 26 August 2003 - 12:13 AM
And as for this:
I'm with you all the way - it would be thrilling!
I hope one day someone presents the necessary information for ghosts to be accepted into the scientific community.
Posted 26 August 2003 - 10:22 AM
Posted 26 August 2003 - 05:40 PM
Posted 27 August 2003 - 03:14 PM
They take an oath that they have to follow. Everyone in the expeirement has to know why it is being done. So if he is a liscensed one then he can not be doing things like that.
I don't see where in the initial post it said that the psychologist in question is intending to lie to people. At any rate, my psychology teacher covered this exact topic just this morning; according to her, psychologists are allowed to lie to experimental subjects, at least up to a point. For example, she described an experiment in learned helplessness that she helped perform during which she and her colleagues assured their subjects that a task they were being asked to perform was relatively simple; in fact, it was designed to be impossible. Psychologists are also allowed to lie about what, exactly, they're trying to test, since knowledge of that could bias the subjects' behavior.
Psychologists are, however, required to give their subjects enough information for the subjects to give intelligent consent to the experiment. And after the experiment is over, they are required to grant full disclosure to everyone involved.
Posted 27 August 2003 - 05:48 PM
Posted 27 August 2003 - 06:27 PM
I'm not sure that it's even an issue, though. The psychologist is honestly telling people that the house is not haunted, and that he plans to rig in up so that it seems to be. If he was telling people that the house was haunted, I could see how it might be a problem, but as far as I know, he's not doing that.
Posted 27 August 2003 - 07:20 PM
Posted 28 August 2003 - 04:56 AM
Posted 28 August 2003 - 05:03 AM
Posted 28 August 2003 - 06:03 AM
Posted 28 August 2003 - 08:09 AM
No, I do not.
OK, don't you find that immoral?
I do. Lets see in order to get informe consent you need to tell the person that they are going into a mock haunted house to see if they can get the same reactions like its a real haunted house. Why not just use a real haunted house?
The whole point of the experiment is to see if you can replicate the effects of a haunted house using nonsupernatural methods. He can't use a real haunted house because that wouldn't prove anything except that you can use a haunted house to duplicate the effects of a haunted house.[/quote/
Put people through what? I still don't understand how you think he's mistreating his subjects.
Why put people through that.
I am sorry I just think that this expierement is wrong. There is no way that this psychologist should be doing this!! Its against the guidelines of an expeirement.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your beliefs. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this subject.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users