71 replies to this topic

[Caniswalensis]

Stevenedel,

That was an excellent post!

Regards, Canis

[timestopped]

Hmmm... well, I know that sometimes it can be hard to believe sounds and orbs and mist and those types of things. But what about flying objects and someones bed jumping up and down off the ground? I understand a skeptics point of view, and I don't always take those ghost shows seriously, I know they are for entertainment. But I think somethings just can't be rationaly explained...

[canuck]

stevenedel, on Sep 12 2009, 06:20 PM, said:

canuck, on Aug 4 2009, 11:39 AM, said:

In the interests of stirring the pot and livening up the discussion, let me draw attention to three theories that have gone through the whole “scientific method”; and despite this, have become “conventional wisdom”.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that contradicts both the conclusions drawn, and the resulting conventional wisdom, the view that has prevailed is that which defends the livelihoods of its proponents, as opposed to the empirical science.

The actual results generated by the “scientific method” were distorted, misinterpreted, cherry picked, misrepresented, falsified and fraudulently presented in order to push the agenda of vested interests.

In other words, the “scientific method” stands no chance in the face of politics and vested interests.

Here are three current theories, to illustrate the point:

1. The diet/cholesterol/fat/atherosclerosis/heart disease theory.
Theory based on fraud and misrepresentation.
Actual result: a possible Nobel Prize for the prime proponent.
2. Darwinian theory of evolution of the species.
Theory conclusively blown out of the water by the Genome Study in 2001.
Actual result: zillions of dollars of research grants still being awarded to Darwinians.
3. The climatic effects of human generated CO2.
Theory definitively disproved by atmospheric physics, thermal physics and historical data.
Actual result: failing careers revitalised and glory gained through politically correct BS.

It is such a comfort, the too few times I pop in here, to find that Canuck is still the same. This particular post I found interesting: to prove the supposed bias and unreliability of scientific findings, Canuck quotes other scientific findings, which, following his own line of reasoning, would be equally biased and unreliable.

It is always nice to have a conspiracy theory at hand to get rid of findings that you don't like, but to pretend that all scientists are just a bunch of money-grabbing impostors who are happily doctoring their data is of course silly, as well as an insult to the many dedicated scientists who work hard to get a clearer view of the facts. Of course science isn't perfect, of course there are those who abuse it, but it has brought us heaps of understanding and has improved our lives in innumerable ways. Imagine where we would be without it.

If ever there is to be convincing evidence of ghosts, psychic abilities or any other paranormal phenomenon, there is no other way to provide it than through the scientific method. These boards are full of claims that are quite easy to test through fairly simple yet scientifically sound procedures. Just one example: it strikes me that EVP recordings are usually presented with the instruction to listen for a voice saying this or that; mostly, we only get to hear the fragment containing the supposed voice. With the suggestion firmly in place, most people will indeed hear the "help me" or "get out of here" or whatever other desperate message the 'other side' has supposedly been sending. This happens for the same reason we see human faces in anything from a wrinkled tablecloth to the moon: humans are pattern-seekers.

The evidence would be a lot more convincing if, say, 100 randomly chosen subjects were presented with an extended audiofragment that at some point contains the supposed EVP. They should get no more instruction than to listen closely for anything remarkable or recognizable they may hear, and if they do so, to write down what they are hearing and at what point of the recording. I would be impressed if even just 15 or 20 of these 100 unprimed subjects would note down the same message at the same point in time on the tape. I also think it is very unlikely this would happen with any of the EVPs I ever heard. And mind you, while it would be impressive, because it suggests that something non-random is there, it would still not in any way prove that the message that was heard came from a ghost. The fact that a message is heard doesn't in itself tell us anything about its source, and the fact that we can't readily explain its presence doesn't in any way lead to the conclusion that it must 'therefore' be supernatural.

Jumping to conclusions, a lack of criticism in determining what your evidence is actually telling you and what is your own interpretation or wishful thinking is the most common error I encounter among paranormal believers. As is the kind of reasoning I find in Duncan's post: "people can be insane, so places can be insane too". How is that? People have minds that can malfunction; a house is made of bricks, wood and mortar, it has no consciousness, no way of storing memories or even of experiencing what is going on inside it. I find it a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that places can be insane. Thousands of questions need to be answered before I can understand how that would be possible.

So while I may not be overly charmed by the tone of the initial post in this thread, I quite understand the challenge it poses. Paranormal believers are constantly saying that the evidence is all over the place, but the fact is it isn't. Not, in any case, evidence that would meet even the mildest scientific standards. And believe me, I've looked.

Your continuing pontifications reveal, yet again, your total ignorance of both scientific processes and the realities of the science industry. As you continue to bury your head in the sand and expound from your idealistic and ill informed soapbox, reality continues to flow around you.

As a case in point, I assume that you are totally oblivious of the current scandal erupting around the Global Warming scam, currently referred to as “The Pentagon Papers of Global Warming”.

For your edification: a whistle blower at the British Climate Research Unit has released a mountain of documentation which shows that the climate research “scientists” in this taxpayer funded institution have perpetrated a massive scientific fraud in their efforts to both secure funding and to advance their personal agenda relating to “global warming”.

The evidence produced by this whistle blower shows that these “scientists”:

1. Destroyed evidence that contradicted their viewpoint.
2. Refused to provide data that they claim supports their viewpoint, despite being required to do so under Freedom of Information legislation.
3. Doctored evidence to ensure that it supported their viewpoint.
4. Torpedoed publication of evidence that contradicted their viewpoint.
5. Ensured unfavourable “peer review” of papers that contradicted their viewpoint.
6. Torpedoed grant applications for research that contradicted their viewpoint.
7. Ridiculed and sullied the reputations of people who were opposed to their viewpoint.

Take into account that the people accused of doing these things are world renowned “scientists”, who are often quoted on matters of climate, and highly exalted by the U.N. and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, they are “the big wheels” of climate change.

Also, take into account the fact that the climate policies of governments all over the world are based on the “science” that they have provided; and the lives of every person on earth is affected by their “work”.

The tragedy of all this is that it demonstrates that “scientists” are no different from other people: they have personal agendas, and are perfectly willing and able to manipulate science and circumstances to advance that agenda.

So, prior to your embarking on future pontifications you may wish to consider in what other fields of “science” has the evidence been destroyed, suppressed, doctored, manipulated or faked in order to further a particular agenda.

[CaveRat2]

Which demonstrates precisely the benefit of utilizing the scientific method. In the case of the global warming hoax, it is coming to light now because other researchers have attempted to confirm the theory and duplicated the early "research". They are getting different conclusions, thus the hoax aspect will be exposed as more and more research is done. Had we done as believers do and just taken it because they said so without questioning, who can say how far down a dead end road we would have travelled.

The same holds for paranormal research. One cannot call it a hoax until uch time as scientific research proves that case. And on the flip side, we can't call it science until that is proven as well. For now it remains a subject for research.

[Corey]

To me, if your using a psychic as a tool in a ghost investigation. You are just leaving yourself open to a higher level of criticism.
Anything presented will have to, or should, come with the caveat that a psychic was involved in the gathering of said information. By doing that though, besides the examination and consideration of the evidence, you have the question of the validity of psychic's ability.

I am naturally going to be more circumspect of a report of activity if it comes from a psychic. Why? Because I'm not convinced that psychic ability exists.

[stevenedel]

Bravo, Canuck! Another conspiracy theory. No, I hadn't heard a thing about these shocking climate revelations, most probably because they aren't revealing much. As far as I've been able to gather from a quick internet search, the authenticity of the material that was hacked is not even certain, and in any case the material contains nothing to support the kind of conclusions you are drawing.

That something isn't right can be clearly seen from you seven point list. E.g., access to research data is not part of the Freedom of Information act, indeed, the hackers who broke into the University of East Anglia computers committed an offence. And how does one go about torpedoing publication of evidence that one doesn't like? Did these evil researchers hold editorial posts in every possible journal? How did they 'ensure unfavourable peer reviews'? How did they torpedo grant applications?

All such arguments can only come from the mind of a person who superficially knows the terminology of the science process, but knows little or nothing about its workings. And then I'm not even asking the question why large numbers of researchers would be letting themselves in onto something like this supposed conspiracy.

And finally, of course, even if all scientists are evil good-for-nothings, that still shouldn't hinder you from producing good evidence. That would be rather more interesting than this weird, paranoid yarn-spinning.

[tommyhancock]

hmm,lets assume this is all true,i've heard some convincing claims to conspiracy theories before so i wont say i do or not believe this,in fact i didnt even look it up truth be told.lets say that it is in fact true. you can see where these scientists would gain.$ for more research they can just fake,making them personally richer.charity organizations to the cause again making them personally more richer etc. i dont exactly see how a scientist would personally gain from disposing of unarguable ghost evidence,i just have to admit i dont see it.i dont think theres hundreds or thousands of scientists out there farming millions or billions of dollars to research this field like there would be with global warming so what is to gain?maybe for a couple who somehow have extravagant funds to research ghosts(admittedly again,i have never heard of such a thing)then i dont see the personal gain.now if they could doctor evidence that would prove ghosts,then i think they would receive some serious $ for further investigation because they would be unique. and as far as them doing it for their own personal beliefs,i have seen/heard of far too many scientists professional or otherwise admit that their opening hypothesis was in fact wrong because to 90+% of scientists its going to be about the answers not the justification of their pwn personal belief or opinion.sure,maybe some have done this,but i dont think so many that it should be called to attention on a large scale.i have also met many scientific based people who in fact believe in ghosts without having proof,but they still admit that the proof is simply not there,they would stand to gain to most if they found this proof.financially and personally,so i doubt theyre hoaxing us.

[canuck]

CaveRat, on Nov 27 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

Which demonstrates precisely the benefit of utilizing the scientific method. In the case of the global warming hoax, it is coming to light now because other researchers have attempted to confirm the theory and duplicated the early "research". They are getting different conclusions, thus the hoax aspect will be exposed as more and more research is done. Had we done as believers do and just taken it because they said so without questioning, who can say how far down a dead end road we would have travelled.

The same holds for paranormal research. One cannot call it a hoax until uch time as scientific research proves that case. And on the flip side, we can't call it science until that is proven as well. For now it remains a subject for research.

Well, no it doesn’t.

The Great Global Warming Hoax has been exposed as a result of the work of one whistle blower, not “The Scientific Method”; this case represents a total and abject failure of “The Scientific Method”.

It is a classic illustration of how a clique of true believers formulate a theory, then cherry pick and manipulate the evidence in order to build the appearance of support for their belief.

If this were an exception, that would be one thing, but the reality is that the ideal of “The Scientific Method” has long since been corrupted and debased; just ask anyone who has a career in science.

The process of formulating a theory, then finding the evidence to support it is commonplace: “What answer do you want? Give me a couple of days, and I will get it for you.”

In most cases it is of no great effect; the sun continues to rise every morning. However, in the case of the Great Global Warming Hoax, it effects the life of every living person on earth.

The next question you should ask, is why is this hoax not being exposed on the front page of every newspaper on earth?

Of course, the parallels with regard to supernatural phenomena are obvious.

[tommyhancock]

i dont doubt for a second that a scientist has the ability to fake results.thats just obvious, especially since the majority of people will listen to the final result and thats that.of course too it is possible that the same can be applied to ghosts or any other form of paranormal study,the only thing i dont buy is that every skeptic wants to cover up facts that ghosts are out there.i truly dont see the benefit,surely not every single scientist sees things in this way,there are plenty who would want to prove ghosts are out there,and i mean why not?they would be considered groundbreaking. not all skeptics just need their beliefs protected some are simply curious and just want proof.some even want to believe.and i do believe that there are believers as bad as you paint skeptics to be,just on the other end of the spectrum.i think there would be cases that were faked in order to "prove the existence of ghosts as well.the idea posed here sounds too much like believers are good guys and skeptics are bad guys.that i dont buy.or that every scientist is a skeptic with a belief and a personal vendetta,there have been too many wrong hypothesis's throughout history to believe that.

[Caniswalensis]

canuck, on Dec 1 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

The Great Global Warming Hoax has been exposed as a result of the work of one whistle blower, not “The Scientific Method”; this case represents a total and abject failure of “The Scientific Method”.

It is a classic illustration of how a clique of true believers formulate a theory, then cherry pick and manipulate the evidence in order to build the appearance of support for their belief.

If this were an exception, that would be one thing, but the reality is that the ideal of “The Scientific Method” has long since been corrupted and debased; just ask anyone who has a career in science.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with some of this.

First, it is still debatable if global warming is real or not. Basing arguments on global warming being a hoax is precarious at this point.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is a hoax, that is not a "total and abject failure" of the scientific method. If it is as you describe, "a clique of true believers formulate a theory, then cherry pick and manipulate the evidence in order to build the appearance of support for their belief" then that does not represent the scientific method at all. It is simple deception (perhaps even self deception) and that has no place in the scientific method.

Once the scientific method becomes "corrupted and debased," it is no longer the scientific method. The method, used correctly and as intended, is completely sound, and still is the best method ever formulated by man for understanding our world.

If you wish to denigrate some particular person or group of people for not correctly employing the scientific method or abusing the good name of science, I will be right there with you. Just please be specific about who you are criticising, and where they have departed from the scientific method. Those are completely different issues from the soundness of the scientific method.

Regards, Canis

[canuck]

Caniswalensis, on Dec 2 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

canuck, on Dec 1 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

The Great Global Warming Hoax has been exposed as a result of the work of one whistle blower, not “The Scientific Method”; this case represents a total and abject failure of “The Scientific Method”.

It is a classic illustration of how a clique of true believers formulate a theory, then cherry pick and manipulate the evidence in order to build the appearance of support for their belief.

If this were an exception, that would be one thing, but the reality is that the ideal of “The Scientific Method” has long since been corrupted and debased; just ask anyone who has a career in science.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with some of this.

First, it is still debatable if global warming is real or not. Basing arguments on global warming being a hoax is precarious at this point.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it is a hoax, that is not a "total and abject failure" of the scientific method. If it is as you describe, "a clique of true believers formulate a theory, then cherry pick and manipulate the evidence in order to build the appearance of support for their belief" then that does not represent the scientific method at all. It is simple deception (perhaps even self deception) and that has no place in the scientific method.

Once the scientific method becomes "corrupted and debased," it is no longer the scientific method. The method, used correctly and as intended, is completely sound, and still is the best method ever formulated by man for understanding our world.

If you wish to denigrate some particular person or group of people for not correctly employing the scientific method or abusing the good name of science, I will be right there with you. Just please be specific about who you are criticising, and where they have departed from the scientific method. Those are completely different issues from the soundness of the scientific method.

Regards, Canis

Regarding the scientific method, from a philosophical standpoint, I fully agree with you. Similarly, to say that all scientists are unethical frauds, and all science is corrupt would be just plain stupid.

The issue is not one of black and white, it is one of a continuum ranging from black to white; nevertheless, there are two distinct issues: the ideal of “The Scientific Method” and the reality of how science is practiced.

Ideally, “The Scientific Method” as you have described it, should be applied to all things. The result should be a pure form of investigation, and unvarnished truth. There is a prevailing myth amongst the uninformed that this is how science is practiced.

The reality is somewhat different; science has always been the handmaiden of the prevailing intellectual, social, cultural and political climate. The output of science has always reflected these factors.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, science was practiced by people who saw it as a means to reveal and glorify the wonderfulness of “God”. Science and religion were considered to be complimentary and mutually supporting. Even Isaac Newton attributed his discoveries to the greatness of “God”.

In the late 19th century, as a result of social and economic pressures, science changed from being a recreation or hobby for some of the aristocracy and clergy, to that of a profession pursued by paid individuals.

In parallel with this, the prevailing intellectual and cultural conditions generated a backlash against the church which resulted in it becoming fashionable for scientists to declare themselves atheistic zealots with a declared adherence to materialist determinism.

Notice that this was the adoption of a belief in reaction to a social condition, as opposed to a position taken as a consequence of any form of scientific investigation.

One consequence of this is that science, even today, arbitrarily dismisses any area of study that is not governed by evident materialistic determinism.

A further consequence of the professionalisation of science is the dependence of scientists for their existence on either funding bodies or an employer.

As in all of life, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.

As a result of this, all scientists who are dependent on other people’s money for their existence are subject to the prevailing political and cultural norms.

Even the most ethical and conscientious of scientists are subject to these pressures; they know what results are expected of them, and either consciously or unconsciously ensure that those expectations are met.

If they fail to meet the expectations of their source of funding, they will join the ranks of the unemployed.

For further reading on this, the following two links provide a pretty good summary of the issues:

http://en.wikipedia....ific_misconduct

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0005738

Regarding the “Great Global Warming Hoax”, you can Google “Climategate” and read for yourself the arguments on both sides of the scandal.

[Markway]

Frankly, the hack skeptic is a fashionable character. And by the way, Randi is a welsher. He's avoided several appointments with folks who looked likely to win.

It's easy to go through life and not encounter evidence for the unseen world that slaps you in the face. Most people,and I speak with some authority here, who encounter paranormal activity usually write it off. If you want to conduct experiments (which no skeptic seems to want to do) there are the experiments and forms of Rupert Sheldrake.

This stuff goes on all of the time, but it doesn't perform upon demand. If I had to prove lightning by setting up a camera where I thought that it was going to hit, how well would I do?

Ghosts are one of the most well documented of all phenomena. The history goes back thousands of years. Psychic phenomenae are equally as ubiquitous, but most folks are quick to explain them away.

That said, most mediums who rely upon their ability for their living often resort to fraud. Imagine being an electrician whose knowledge and craft came and went. Your bills don't wait, they're quite regular. And, of course, some people are natural predators, and others are suckers for an experience.

There are places where paranormal activity occurs with deadly regularity. When the Pac-Med Hospital was being remodeled, just a couple of nights would have ensured a nasty encounter. Certain homes are like that today, although people are careful to hide this as they are busily trying to rent and/or sell these properties.

The scientific method works well when applied. Expect dramatic statistics, not dramatic results.

[Caniswalensis]

Markway, on Dec 17 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

And by the way, Randi is a welsher. He's avoided several appointments with folks who looked likely to win.

Hi MarKway,

Please provide some evidence to back this statement up, if possible. I'm interested in hearing about this.

Regards, Canis

[tommyhancock]

i looked up the global warning stuff,its not nearly as conclusive as it was led on to be.the scientists did some sketchy things,but a lot of the things in question werent put out because they were just guesses that were as of yet inconclusive.if la hoya boxed mayweather and i said he would win,it wouldnt make me a liar if it turned out the other way.

i do agree that heads are turnd away from evidence all the time.the claim is always give me good evidence and il look into it.but then theres tons of evidence that cant be explained away and is just left sitting there untested. what do people think evidence is?evidence does not equal proof,evidence leads to proof. how many murder victims leave behind signed notes saying they did it?how many cases are proven in court without confessions or anything as solid as some skeptics expect.evidence exists on a massive scale some just want prove before they look into and use the word evidence instead.a lot of investigations done with too much belief or not looked into thoroughly enough but a lot of investigations done with too much skepticism is done too lazily. "cant explain what it is,but that doesnt mean its a ghost...moving on" WHAT.why investigate,it shoul be called taking unguided tours in most cases

[Reality 101]

hippityhoohaa, on Apr 4 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

I can conduct the illusion of psychic abilities, clairvoyance, mediumship etc. From reading a lot of posts on these forums I can see anyone who believes in ghosts has a gross misunderstanding or misapplication of the scientific method. But of course your response will be "ohh no it's you who isn't open minded".

That is why I invite absolutely anyone here, or anywhere else (even if you're just reading this forum and are not registered), who claims to possess any supernatural power (whether you think you're a psychic, can talk to the dead, or do anything else) to add me to Yahoo Messenger on hippityhoohaa@y7mail.com and prove it to me. Tell me things about myself that a stranger couldn't possibly know, and that are statistically unlikely to be random.

Through text, I ask you to demonstrate to me even the slightest thing that I, as a skeptic, would not be able to explain normally. Don't attempt anything vague on me, because I probably know cold reading better than you do. The reason I'm making this post is to show everyone that if you believe in anything supernatural, then you can be almost certain that you're deluded.

If anyone can convince me of any supernatural ability, however slight, I will not only give them $1000USD, but I will also promote them in a way they never imagined. If you fail however, which I know everyone will, then I reserve the right to publish our full conversation here, or anywhere else I choose, for everyone to see.

I'm trying to compile a lists of fakes, or people who genuinely believe they have paranormal abilities but obviously suffer from a mental illness, so that I can put together a book demonstrating to vulnerable minds that there is indeed no such thing as the supernatural.

So go ahead, add me on hippityhoohaa@y7mail.com if you think you're a psychic, medium, or anything else that you think you can prove. Be reminded however that I reserve the right to publish our full conversation anywhere I please. And please don't try any fraudulent techniques or ask me to provide you any detailed information about myself, as I'm probably a better trickster than you are and don't fall for such things. People who play upon the vulnerable with their charlatanism sicken me.

I dare anyone to step up to thiGood and fair test but even I would not go so far as to conclude none of it is real and certainly all is not faked.

I would not actually call misconception and misperception or emotional distress , fake.s challenge. If no one does, then it just goes to show what a hoax any psychics here are when confronted by someone who knows their tricks.

Good and fair test but even I would not go so far as to conclude none of it is real and certainly all is not faked.

I would not actually call misconception and misperception or emotional distress , fake or a hoax.