Question to the skeptics and believers...
Posted 27 January 2003 - 05:42 AM
This morning I pose a question to you all.
To whom is the burdon of proof on, when dealing with the paranormal? Which is to say, If a skeptic or believer in the activities of the paranormal, presents to a group of both believers and skeptics, a picture that will supposedly validate the existance or non-existance of said activity of the spiritual kind... who would need to back up said picture with fact and science? The presentor? Or the viewer?
I believe that the presentor of the article or picture or whatever it is that is being presented should have the burdon of proof upon them. If there is any question as to the validity of their claim, they should be able to back up what it is that they are stating. They should be able to back up with fact rather than belief.
Is it fair that anyone come and say, "Look at this. It is 100% proof that there is paranormal activity. Now, I'm not going to support my claim in any manner... you just have to believe, because the proof is in the picture."
If I were ever to have a picture that I thought would be solid proof of the afterlife... I would expect each and every one of you to question it's authenticity. I would demand to be questioned on the methods under which I was able to capture such a visage. I would be looking for an answer. I would not EVER expect anyone to believe that what I have presented as fact to be fact without question. If I ever presented something to this group I would hope that someone would be able to either disprove what I have presented, or at the very least question what I have presented. If you do not question... this goes especially to the believers... but if you do not question what is presented... then you are doing a grave (pardon the pun) disservice to this genre of investigation.
This genre of study is just that... a study. Nobody has all the answers... and perhaps none of us truly will. For as long as there are believers... there will be an equal amount of skeptics and non-believers. But, we will all continue to study... forever trying to get that one shred of positive evidence that can be proved to be real and accurate.
In closing... I believe that as investigators, we sould... no MUST question everything that we are being presented with. For without this questioning and burdon of proof, all we become are close minded sheep following in the path and footsteps of anyone that has a claim that they have the proof, while not being able to support it. And if while being questioned about the validity of any specific claim... all you can do is bash others and avoid the topic of proving what you have claimed... then one simple line from a very old movie states, "I do believe that the lady doth protest too much."
Posted 27 January 2003 - 10:57 AM
As for the non-believers, the only ones that believers should have a problem with, are the ones who do not allow the possibility of a supernatural explanation. THis is unfortunate, as most of the time you will not be able to have a rational discussion about it. They are not open to the possiblity, no matter how much you try to convince them of the possiblility.
Well that's my thought on the subject. Thanks for reading.
Posted 28 January 2003 - 04:18 AM
I will attempt to keep this brief as it seems you will most likely not read this anyways, from the sound of your last post.
I have not at any time attacked you or your character. In all of this, I had stated what my feelings about 1 particular picture and video segment were. I was at that point more than content to say what I had to say and let it go. You sir were the one that questioned my reasonings. I answered you and you did not like what I had to say. Then, you attacked me by calling me ignorant. (at the very least of what you have called me.)
I have even gone so far as to state that you could have been correct about what you had presented. You still did not like that... so I offered you a chance to shoot down my possible explanations and instead you chose to bash some more and completely disregard the discussion at hand.
The question in this thread that I posted yesterday morning was a part of our discussions, True. However, it was more my intent to see what others had to say about the TOPIC as a whole as opposed to the conversation we were having. You are the one that has continuously brought to light that it is a part of our conversations. If I wanted everyone to relate specifically to our conversation, I would have posted snipets of our conversation up to and including your outrageously uncensorable email that you sent me.
Honestly, I feel that if you are going to leave... I am sorry that you will. It was not my intention to chase anyone away. In all of this... the only thing that I have ever accused you of is losing your objectivity. And that is hardly an insult. I believe that this is a valid question that I have posed to the group as I am interested on what the others think.
Contrary to what you may believe (as you have so posted) I am not here to degrade other's work... impugn their characters... or simply to raise havoc. I am here to learn. I am here to see what others in the Paranormal community have to say in regards to the many topics that are discussed here. Do I question some of the techniques? Yes. Do I attack others? NO.
As for your assessment that I am here to impugn and to destroy rather than to help build... I answer you in this manner. If by my questioning and beliefs, I destroy a tower of lies and deceipt... so that what you are left with is a stronger base on which to build. Then I am helping. For you are dealing in a subject that has shaky credibility at best. Building a tower full of dimissable facts will only crumble in the long run. And as I've said in the above question... It is my belief that it is EVERY investigators job to question what they have seen and when ALL Reasonable Explanations have been removed... you are left with the truth. It is my aim to remove those Reasonable Explanations in my quest for the truth.
Now, you can either answer my questions in relation to our conversation... (In other words, disprove what I had stated) or you can choose to bash me some more as it seems that is all you're truly capable of. Or you can throw a hissy fit as you've been doing and take your flying orb and go home. Either way... have no pity for me as I need none of it.
Posted 28 January 2003 - 05:42 AM
The focus of this entire exchange has been about a photo that one person saw one way, and another person viewed a different way. It happens here quite often. Most of the time, people have an open mind to other's viewpoints and perspectives.
When you post a picture on the boards, you are inviting others viewpoints and even criticism, even if you don't happen to agree with it. Take it as another person's opinion and leave it at that. We all have our own opinions and that is what makes this place so great, we share our opinions and quite often our differences, but we leave it at that.
So let's agree to disagree on this one, okay?
Posted 01 February 2003 - 06:31 AM
Leaving is not the answer. All of our opinions are valuable and to lose just one of them is always a negative thing.
The photo in question has escaped my ability to view it due to overwhelming hours at work.
95 hours last week and 85 this week. I have all I can do to simply get home safely every day and go into a 3 hour coma until it starts all over again.
This mayhem at work should be ending within a few weeks and I will then take a close look at the photo in question. I am now even more curious about its nature.
Flying Orb, your opinion is valuable & stay around ;D
Casey , your opinion is valuable. ;D
Ron ( Rockhauler )
Posted 06 February 2003 - 09:26 AM
Posted 24 May 2003 - 08:04 AM
Posted 27 May 2003 - 11:27 PM
Has anyone seen the video of the ghost walking across the road in daylight? So many people swore this was the almighty proof, until they all slowly realized the "ghost" was merely a smudge on the windshield. If we let our imaginations dictate what we believe there will never be any truthful answers. Yes, everyone has opinions, and certainly everyone has their own theories....but to merely speculate and quote scientific principles without experimentation or evidence it will always remain an opinion.
I have seen hundreds of "paranormal" photographs, some can be explained others can not. This does not mean they validate any claim. I have also taken many photographs that suggest life beyond, but, I know there are many factors that could have influenced the photograph.
I blame groups like the IGHS for spawing a generation that thinks that "proof" is merely what we think or feel, and if we believe in something all we have to do is convince someone else..then it's fact! Well, it did work for them, and has fueled their motorhome all across America.
This is a silly debate here, and I apologize for my venting...though this does belong in the skeptic room...
Posted 27 May 2003 - 11:43 PM
Posted 12 June 2003 - 11:20 PM
For what it's worth from just some stranger I think the level of discussion I've seen here is very engaging, and provocative.
A couple things entered my mind as I read this thread:
I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I believe this phrase can be a good rule of thumb regarding how stringent the evidence has to be for each claim.
As for where the burden lies, either on the skeptics or the "believers," feel like this should be said; Skeptics don't really make claims as a general rule, they make hypothesis and then actively investigate those hypothesis.
It's one thing when a person claiming to be skeptic accuses someone of outright fraudulent behavior or lying. But short of that skepticism is simply a matter of demanding proof commensurate with the level of claim.
If someone said, "I can balance an olive on the end of my nose", that claim is neither extraordinary, nor does it ask for any revision to the laws of physics, or other sciences as we know them. I would merely require one brief demonstration to prove it.
If someone were to claim they could turn lead into gold, that would require repeated tests under controlled labortaory conditions in order to eliminate outside effects or influences. The problem is that the claim refutes the entire science of chemistry as we have come to know it.
Not that chemistry is infallible. Each discipline is under going a constant state of revision, and re-evaluation, such is the scientific method. But as I'm sure you can imagine, someone claiming things fall up would have a lot of explaining to do to make clear how he or she arrived at that conlusion.
But I'm curious, what claims have you heard from skeptics that require proof? What have been your experiences in the past?
Posted 12 June 2003 - 11:29 PM
I'm sorry, Moonchild, perhaps my sense of sarcasm needs sharpening, but I disagree with that statement.
Off the top of my head I can think of two things science has accepted that were once considered foolish:
1.) The heliocentric model of the solar system.
2.) Plate tectonics.
I'm thinking I misunderstood your post and we're all going to laugh about this later, but am I missing something?
Posted 13 June 2003 - 03:18 AM
What you told about Heliocentric model and plate tectonics IS EXACTLY what I meant, and many more. Science PROOVES only those things that were considered foolish IS WHAT I actually MEANT to convey! So I guess, it is not you but me, who have made things difficult by being not so clear in my statement.
See you around pal.
Posted 13 June 2003 - 04:14 AM
I am glad you decided to drop in. A little explanation about this thread. When I first joined Ghostvillage I posted one of my paranormal photos. I was extremely ill at the time (no excuse though) and took unreasonable offense at Casey's comments about my pic. I was rude, intolerent, and just plain stupid toward Casey. As I have grown (yes even at 48 you can still grow) I was ashamed of the comments I made and deleted them. I should have posted this a long time ago and sent Casey a copy, I will correct that error today.
Andonyx, I don't feel a skeptic holds the burden of proof. All I consider necessary in skeptics, and believers too, is the willingness to put the proof to the test and the willingness to seek and acknowledge the truth no matter what it turns out to be.
Posted 13 June 2003 - 11:10 AM
The person who makes the claim. You state that ghosts are real? The onus is on you to present the evidence. I say psychics are all frauds? I better make sure I have the evidence. It doesn't just apply to the paranormal, it's the same for all aspects of life. Doctor Jones says fluoridation prevents tooth decay? Show me, Doctor Jones. You say that man stole your wallet, Joanne? How do you know that?
If a skeptic or believer in the activities of the paranormal, presents to a group of both believers and skeptics, a picture that will supposedly validate the existance or non-existance of said activity of the spiritual kind... who would need to back up said picture with fact and science? The presentor? Or the viewer?
There are 2 possible scenarios.
1) The claim is considered false until proven true by the presenter.
2) The claim is considered true until proven false by the audience.
Let’s think about what it’d be like if the second scenario were the norm ….. Iggy, the invisible Mexican gnome who lives under my bed would be real (no one’s proved he doesn’t exist) …… Bubaloo, the green tiger who lives in my bathroom is also real (show me the research that shows he ain’t real) …. Santa Claus ….. Easter bunny ….. flying elephants ……. Witches …… purple people eaters from Mars …… the list is endless.
Now, how would you go about disproving something anyway - green tigers for instance?
"Green tigers don't exist because nobody has ever seen one".
"Well, that's because you've been looking in the wrong places. "
"Okay, we've just finished checking every location in the entire world for green tigers. None were found. Therefore they don't exist."
"Uh, no. Whilst you were searching Italy, the green tiger walked from Germany (which you hadn't checked) to France (which you had). You simply weren't in the right place at the right time."
"Fair enough. We hired eveybody in the world and bought every video camera. All the locations in the world were searched at the same time and no green tigers were found."
"I've got some bad news for you. A green tiger was born a couple of hours after you sent everybody home and switched off all the cameras."
What I'm trying to show in the example is that, in order to *disprove* something, you'd have to search all of time and space for that thing. Is trying to gain knowledge of what's real or not using the second method a good idea? No, absolutely not.
Edited to add: ok, ok so this is only true for the general case - you ain't gonna hold that against me, are ya?
Rockhauler2k1 The photo in question has escaped my ability to view it due to overwhelming hours at work.
95 hours last week and 85 this week.
flyingorb I don't feel a skeptic holds the burden of proof.
The burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a claim, skeptics included.
Posted 13 June 2003 - 01:56 PM
Much of what is presented on the web is based on pseudoscience.
When its all tied up in a neat little package with no explainiation other than because the great guru Bozo said so , how can anyone believe it .
If we dont question what is presented , we become worse than those who present the nonsense. After all , who is the more foolish ?, the fool or the fool who follows it?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users