View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Discuss General Topics.

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 24 Nov 2009, 08:13

ProfWag wrote:
Student of Sophia wrote:
... so I know psi is real.

No you don't.


Oh yes I do. Wanna fight about it? We can take it outside. :twisted:
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37






Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 24 Nov 2009, 11:07

The problem in experiments is like someone being a referee in a sporting event in which their own child is a participant. It's hard to be fair. What is interesting here is that people are certain that psi exists even if it can't be demonstrated. One of the links discussed how psi could make it impossible or difficult to detect psi. This sounds like religion to me, i.e. it's faith based, rather than fact based.

To claim that "... I know psi is real." although it can't be demonstrated is faith. To consider the notion that psi is so capricious, or prone to issues that it can't be demonstrated tells me that for all practical purposes it does not exist.

People have a tendency to see patterns where there are patterns and where there are no patterns. Mathematical tools have been developed to see how good patterns really are. Double blind testing is used to remove the bias of the experiment from the experimenter. There are lots of ideas out there about how experiments should or can be done. Why doesn't any of this work for psi?

I can't say psi does not exist, but it seems that no psi capabilities or talents to date have tested positive.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 24 Nov 2009, 11:30

Nostradamus wrote:The problem in experiments is like someone being a referee in a sporting event in which their own child is a participant. It's hard to be fair. What is interesting here is that people are certain that psi exists even if it can't be demonstrated.


Demonstrating it is one thing. Experiencing it yourself is another. I've experienced more than enough weirdness in my life. So much that I would like a little normalcy.

Can I demonstrate my experiences to you? No.

Do I expect you to change your views based on my experiences? No.

Can you convince me that I didn't experience what I experienced? No.

One of the links discussed how psi could make it impossible or difficult to detect psi. This sounds like religion to me, i.e. it's faith based, rather than fact based.


Faith based only to those who haven't experienced it yet believe in it anyway. I don't have to have faith, I have veridical experience.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Or do I have to take you outside and slap you around until you do see? ;)

BTW, I think it is demonstrable to the world, provided the sheep-goat effect is taken into account.
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ciscop » 24 Nov 2009, 13:28

Student of Sophia wrote: I have veridical experience.

i have heard that before... but well...
would you like to share your experience?
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 24 Nov 2009, 13:34

ciscop wrote:
Student of Sophia wrote: I have veridical experience.

i have heard that before... but well...
would you like to share your experience?


No. I've found it does no good. Skeptics have an explanation for everything, and they think their explanations solve everything because they have no experiences of their own to weigh against their explanations. If they did, they would realize how feeble their various explanations are.
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ProfWag » 24 Nov 2009, 18:52

Student of Sophia wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Student of Sophia wrote:
... so I know psi is real.

No you don't.


Oh yes I do. Wanna fight about it? We can take it outside. :twisted:

I have no doubt Student, that in your mind, you know psi is real. I have no doubt that the Pope knows God is real. I also know that my Chicago Cubs will one day win a World Series. Unfortunately, knowing it does not make it so. We know gravity is real. We know aerodynamics and how planes fly. We believe (or not) in parapsychology.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 24 Nov 2009, 22:23

I have no doubt ProfWag, that in your mind, you believe we can only believe (or not) in parapsychology. You can't believe I experienced psi so you must believe that I only believe it. You can't even believe there's a greater than zero chance that I experienced psi, can you?

Of the two of us, you are the one with beliefs, even though your belief system demands that you not believe that. I have first-hand experience and parapsychology evidence. What do you have? Nothing but your (dis)belief based on (non)experience and (non)evidence.

It's almost as if skeptics are all deaf and trying to debunk music to a man who can hear. "You only believe you hear music." I can understand why they would wish to debunk music. Otherwise they would have to think about all the great music they are missing out on, and face the fact that there is something wrong with them. That would be rather depressing.

'He who has ears, let him hear.'
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ciscop » 25 Nov 2009, 00:37

Student of Sophia wrote:I have no doubt ProfWag, that in your mind, you believe we can only believe (or not) in parapsychology. You can't believe I experienced psi so you must believe that I only believe it. You can't even believe there's a greater than zero chance that I experienced psi, can you?

Of the two of us, you are the one with beliefs, even though your belief system demands that you not believe that. I have first-hand experience and parapsychology evidence. What do you have? Nothing but your (dis)belief based on (non)experience and (non)evidence.

It's almost as if skeptics are all deaf and trying to debunk music to a man who can hear. "You only believe you hear music." I can understand why they would wish to debunk music. Otherwise they would have to think about all the great music they are missing out on, and face the fact that there is something wrong with them. That would be rather depressing.

'He who has ears, let him hear.'



uuh...! i have ears
and i want to hear you but you are turning me down
i guess if your stories can be explained by normal means arent that impressive
let me guess
one time you thought of somebody the phone rang and it was that person?? maaan thats impressive!!
or... just like scescop
one time somebody ask you to name the next playing card and you correctly predicted it.. JUST ONE TIME... WOOOOOOOOOW...

i have ears
but i also have logical thinking and critical thinking
which help understand COINCIDENCES are just that
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 25 Nov 2009, 05:08

ciscop wrote:uuh...! i have ears
and i want to hear you but you are turning me down
i guess if your stories can be explained by normal means arent that impressive
let me guess
one time you thought of somebody the phone rang and it was that person?? maaan thats impressive!!
or... just like scescop
one time somebody ask you to name the next playing card and you correctly predicted it.. JUST ONE TIME... WOOOOOOOOOW...

i have ears
but i also have logical thinking and critical thinking
which help understand COINCIDENCES are just that


Yes I see you do! They can't be explained by normal means. But everytime I go into details I regret it. So I don't do it anymore.

I will give you the categories of experiences I've had:

Precognitive vision
Transpersonal dreams
UFO type stuff
Telepathy
Synchronicity
RSPK
clairvoyance
clairaudience
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ciscop » 25 Nov 2009, 08:12

Precognitive vision
Transpersonal dreams
UFO type stuff
Telepathy
Synchronicity
RSPK
clairvoyance
clairaudience
[/quote]

pretty cool stuff.. (by the way i also saw an UFO once)..
what is transpersonal dreams?
what is rspk?
what do you mean with synchronicity? like saying the same thing or finding someone in a place?
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Student of Sophia » 25 Nov 2009, 08:19

ciscop wrote:pretty cool stuff.. (by the way i also saw an UFO once)..


Cool, I've seen about a half dozen or so.

what is transpersonal dreams?


Shamanic psychic archetypal type dreams.

what is rspk?


Random spontaneous psychokinesis. Otherwise known as poltergiests.

what do you mean with synchronicity? like saying the same thing or finding someone in a place?


Yeah sort of. Meaningful coincidence.
Student of Sophia
 
Posts: 37
Joined: 01 Aug 2009, 23:37

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ciscop » 25 Nov 2009, 08:55

Student of Sophia wrote:
ciscop wrote:pretty cool stuff.. (by the way i also saw an UFO once)..


Cool, I've seen about a half dozen or so.

what is transpersonal dreams?


Shamanic psychic archetypal type dreams.

what is rspk?


Random spontaneous psychokinesis. Otherwise known as poltergiests.

what do you mean with synchronicity? like saying the same thing or finding someone in a place?


Yeah sort of. Meaningful coincidence.


shamanic psychic archetypal type?..
thats pretty cool use of language
is it like going to a desert and eat peyote being guided by a ¨shaman?¨
cause i did that.. pretty cool stuff but i wouldnt call it psychic.. just quite revealing and awesome

random spontaneous psychokinesis?... like what?

and you saw 6 ufos!??!.. i envy you!. i really enjoyed the one i saw, pretty cool experience
it was really dark and i was camping when i saw a light quickly disappearing in the sky
it could have been a ... i dont know the term in english.. a meteor or whatever.. but at that time i remember i saw it moving really oddly
like moving in a zigzag way.. i could be wrong, memory does fail and i might be re-writing what i really saw, i dont know
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby ProfWag » 25 Nov 2009, 18:18

Student of Sophia wrote:I have no doubt ProfWag, that in your mind, you believe we can only believe (or not) in parapsychology. You can't believe I experienced psi so you must believe that I only believe it. You can't even believe there's a greater than zero chance that I experienced psi, can you?

Of the two of us, you are the one with beliefs, even though your belief system demands that you not believe that. I have first-hand experience and parapsychology evidence. What do you have? Nothing but your (dis)belief based on (non)experience and (non)evidence.

Uhhhh, how do you know I haven't experienced something paranormal? I most certainly have! The difference between you and me is that I believe that there was a rational explanation for it. I don't know you, but it appears that you take it at face value and don't look for a rational explanation. You're also wrong in that I do believe there is a great than zero chance that you experienced psi. I hope there is! What you don't seem to realize, however, is that IF you have proof of parapsychology, then that word would no longer begin with "para." THAT's how I know you don't "know" it's real, but you only "believe" it's real.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 25 Nov 2009, 22:06

Faith based only to those who haven't experienced it yet believe in it anyway. I don't have to have faith, I have veridical experience.

The adjective veridical appears in the text of psi believers that want to believe that there was more than met the eye. Hmmm. That sounds like an attempt to change faith to fact.

No. I've found it does no good. Skeptics have an explanation for everything, and they think their explanations solve everything because they have no experiences of their own to weigh against their explanations. If they did, they would realize how feeble their various explanations are.


Why don't you try us? You're not trying to hide a closed mind on this are you?

It's almost as if skeptics are all deaf and trying to debunk music to a man who can hear. "You only believe you hear music." I can understand why they would wish to debunk music. Otherwise they would have to think about all the great music they are missing out on, and face the fact that there is something wrong with them. That would be rather depressing.


This is a bad analogy. Ever been to a party for the deaf? I have and it is painful to those that hear. The music is turned to the point of bone crushing, destructive loud. Music can be demonstrated to those that can't hear. Helen Keller learned to communicate despite being unable to see or hear. And other have done it too.

There are lots of phenomena that have been demonstrated in science. There are libraries full of books covering various subjects. But psi is not one of them despite attempts by many people to demonstrate psi as real.

What makes me also think faith is that people are so convinced of something they cannot explain is that they fall back on a reason that they cannot demonstrate, i.e. the sheep-goat effect. This sounds to me like the following steps:
1. Someone claims God is loving claim
2. Someone responds with the veridical evidence of bad people living and good people dying
3. The response to this is the "God works in mysterious ways" rejoinder

Again, I see religion. Those with faith claim a multitude of veridical evidence for their position. And as you point out there are often prosaic explanations for the experiences that do not rely on the existence of the unprovable existence of a supernatural being.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics wouldn't accept psi, even if science does

Postby Nostradamus » 25 Nov 2009, 22:09

I'll post an amazing event that was not a UFO.

I've seen amazing things in the sky. Here is what happened. I was camped on an isolated part of the beach off Galveston, Texas. For those in the US it was Padre Island. Instead of crowding into the state park facilities I was several miles to the west on a dark beach. Gathered up some firewood and began to cook shrimp I had purchased from a local fisherman. A few minutes into the cooking the dark beach became very bright. It was a clear night and the stars were beautiful. Out of nowhere a bright light came out of the sky. It lit up the beach sand. I looked up into the sky and it was there and then gone.

UFO? Not at all. It was the brightest fireball I have ever seen. Spectacular! I've seen many bright meteors, but this was the best. Imagine a meteor that was more than a streak in the sky, but bright enough to cast shadows.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests