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

What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby NucleicAcid » 01 Apr 2010, 11:35

I've noticed this trend (and this is only some skeptics, not the majority by any means), pretty much over the course of the history of psi research and psi skepticism. It just seems like so many skeptics act like...entitled to have psi proven TO THEM personally, or else it doesn't exist. Now, I fully understand credulity, I don't expect them to believe what the psychic or energy worker says, because they haven't looked into the matter themselves. But can't they just sort of...roll their eyes and roll with it, instead of essentially insisting on having the evidence handed to them? Furthermore, it is essentially their own ignorance that they don't know the true matter of things, that psi isn't this open-shut, never been replicated thing...it's got a rich and fascinating history, and a huge body of modern, scientific evidence to support it.

To me, it seems awfully similar to when a creationist goes up, and says that evolution is impossible, because they think the mechanisms needed to make an organism function are far too complicated than what could have occurred by chance and selection pressures, because they've never read up on it.

It's just frustrating, and this is mostly a rant. I already know the answer to my question - it's basically human nature. But it still makes me wanna strangle people at times.

It's obvious that psi does not lend itself to publicity stunts. So what? That's not how science works. You can't have it both ways, you can't have showbiz and solid evidence, because you know even if someone did succeed at some $1Million task, there would be immediate accusations that it was a coincidence or fraud. Look at the case with the Girl With Xray Eyes. She got 4 out of 7 targets (p = .0163), instead of the target 5 out of 7, and they (CSI(COP)) called it a total failure.

Uuugggghhhhhh.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20






Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 12:26

Wasn't the Natasha Demkina test considered to be poorly constructed? It was possible to see some of the issues from an external inspection of the people involved. Wasn't there a claim that she was asking for information from the people being inspected?

The p claim is based on the notion that she had no other information to assign conditions.

Isn't there also a claim that she has never made a mistake?

Didn't the xray eyes girl agree beforehand that the score she received was a miss? So when you say they said it was a miss, hadn't the girl and her mom also agreed that what happened would be a miss?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 12:29

From http://www.csicop.org/si/show/natasha_demkina_the_girl_with_normal_eyes/
Such a calamity happened to Dr. Christopher Steele, the host of a medical television show in the United Kingdom, who in 2004 invited Natasha on his show to provide “medical readings.” When she read Steele, she said she saw something wrong with his gall bladder and that he had kidney stones and an enlarged liver and pancreas. The physician rushed off to have a battery of expensive and invasive clinical tests-which found nothing wrong with him.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby NucleicAcid » 01 Apr 2010, 13:34

Ah...more pieces of the puzzle I did not have before. That's interesting. I can see how from their perspective, there isn't much going on.

However, this is very typical CSICOP reporting. Many paragraphs of all the stuff she missed, and all that is mentioned of the hit rate:

Natasha matched only four of the conditions correctly-a score that everyone prior to the test had agreed would not justify further testing.


Not that the Dr Steele incident wasn't an epic fail. That's pretty brutal. But that is what you get when you claim a 100% hit rate.

I think a big factor is that people don't really understand what being 'psychic' entails. They think it's all about reading minds like it's a book, and making objects fly around with a glance, and always knowing what is going to happen a day before it does. If that were the only state of psychic abilities, sure, I'd say they'd be totally debunked. But that's not psychic ability, that's being an entertainer.

When someone goes, "If you're a psychic, what's my name?", or want them to know some obscure detail it's like saying, "You have legs, why can't you run 20 mph?" Sure, maybe some people could do it, under the right conditions (fastest sprint speed 26 mph), but it's nonetheless a hyperbole.

Being psychic is in a lot of ways like being 'lucky,' except you have a bit more control over how and when it engages.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Craig Browning » 01 Apr 2010, 22:29

I think a big factor is that people don't really understand what being 'psychic' entails. They think it's all about reading minds like it's a book, and making objects fly around with a glance, and always knowing what is going to happen a day before it does. If that were the only state of psychic abilities, sure, I'd say they'd be totally debunked. But that's not psychic ability, that's being an entertainer.

When someone goes, "If you're a psychic, what's my name?", or want them to know some obscure detail it's like saying, "You have legs, why can't you run 20 mph?" Sure, maybe some people could do it, under the right conditions (fastest sprint speed 26 mph), but it's nonetheless a hyperbole.

Being psychic is in a lot of ways like being 'lucky,' except you have a bit more control over how and when it engages.


YES!

You are on mark here BUT... I fear that you may still be ascribing to the idea of Psychic's being something outside of "normal" or "natural" which, if you look back on some of my other posts, you will see that I've reasons for negating that assumption, lending a limited amount of kudo to the skeptic's culture, or more correctly, the academic and scientific elements of society who have, over the decades, discovered the magician's secrets, so to speak

In my experience less than 5% of what is attributed to being Psychic hosts any kind of Paranormal/Other Worldly influence. I leave that door open simply because of direct personal experience otherwise I'd probably be a full fledged asshole like all the other protagonists of the skeptic's realm. :lol:

What you have described however, in the opening of this thread, is what I call "Doubting Thomas Syndrome"... people refuse to believe something until they place their fingers into the proverbial nail holes... sadly, there are many in today's world who would scoff at evidence that tangible, simply because THEY DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE and that's where the truth lays.

Skeptic Societies and the element of Faux Academia have become the breeding ground for Atheism based on the LIE that Intelligent People Don't Have Imaginary Friends (a.k.a. they don't believe in "God" or a "Higher Power"). If you look at the history of both groups you will find that up till the early-mid 20th century the majority of honest Skeptics/Investigators as well as Scholars, weren't just well schooled within the auspices of religion and theology, they were in fact, believers and patrons of the church (typically Anglican or Episcopal type spin-offs from Catholicism but there are a high number of Lutheran & Methodists on that same list as well as Muslims & Jews). The taint of Atheism/Agnosticism oozed its way into these groups about the same time as the Renaissance era even though the world has always had its fair share of non-believers (we must have them in order to create contrast as well as stimulation of the mind; unchallenged faith is an empty and assumptive belief founded on ignorance rather than active participation.) The sense of Evangelism from the Atheist element however, is very much a mid-20th Century event that's escalated since the late 1970s (especially in the UK).

I bring all of this out so that you can understand how, one side of the tenacity we see coming from the non-believer's side of things stems more from their anger and disbelief of God -- anger, in that 90% of Atheists become such as the result of "god" not answering a prayer in the way they wanted the prayer to be answered. In other words, they aren't mature enough (emotionally and spiritually) to understand why the answer can be "NO" and why that is so... they don't think things through, they just focus on their disappointment which turns into discouragement, distrust and ultimately "proof" (in their mind) that there is no god. Of course, if there is no god then there can't be anything else that is beyond or above or more perfected than the human animal. When armed with such "validation" -- zeal -- you have the sort of individual that can be manipulated and used as a weapon... so long as you train it properly by way of repetition.

Take a look at every article, interview, lecture, workshop, etc. associated with Skepticism (not to be confuses with actual scientific research) and keep notes as to how many times certain views are stated. See for yourself the "Mantra" factor (as I call it); not just in how disciples are taught to think and perceive things but likewise how their acts of rebuttal are nearly word for word the same thing on each issue and have been for decades if not generations. You will likewise see that they have a handful of "OUTS" that are "scientifically proven"... coincidence is the most popular; whenever a Psychic's predictions are correct the most common explanation is "coincidence" followed by "but it can't be repeated under lab conditions" rather than accepting the fact that such abilities and circumstances wouldn't be viewed as "special" if they were repeatable and "rigid"/mechanical. But there is that other cop-out... :oops: I mean, explanation :roll: -- Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

I have to laugh when I hear this one in that it leans on a Metaphysical idea skeptics likewise seek to negate; the idea that affirmation and visualization doesn't work. Yet, when it comes to this "OUT" they are relying on the essence of that very exercise -- a New Age spiritual & healing practice! I've always enjoyed the irony of it and how it proves that "skeptics" -- that is to say, those that are more cynical and closed minded -- are FOOLS.

Needless to say there are many other such "OUTS" but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying and what you should look at.

I've gone far too long in addressing things, I just wanted to give you a brownie point for your observations. ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Nostradamus » 01 Apr 2010, 23:31

At first I thought you discussing the kidney viewing that was done in California a few months ago. That was intersting as well, but did not have the success rate in the x-ray eyes case.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby NucleicAcid » 02 Apr 2010, 00:35

Why thank you, Craig :)

I've come to learn having a few skeptics around is super useful, because EVERYONE gets caught up in their own cognitive biases. Everyone. No exceptions. Sometimes it really gets in the way of rational thinking. I was having a discussion on the RatSkep (rational-skepticism.org) forum with Andrew Endersby, who is very intelligent and well versed in the Ganzfeld debate. But he made this claim:

ersby wrote:The problem with creating a list of psi-conducive protocols is that you can only work this out by looking at the methods of the papers and finding what was done during successful ones. This creates a bit of circular logic as people then claim these protocols are associated with high hit rates. Of course they are. That’s why they were chosen in the first place.


I'm not sure if he just doesn't know about the history of psi research, or he's reciting a factoid that a prominent skeptic (I forget who) has been propagating. (I can't find the source, but they basically claimed that parapsychologists make their hypothesis based on meta-analyses, and then test that hypothesis with those meta-analyses).

The whole idea that psi is some sort of mostly-mental faculty that requires a number of conditions for optimal usage has been around since the mid-1800s. Most of the psi-conducive protocols (nice warm, comfortable environment, low external stimuli, relaxation techniques, meditation, mental quiescence) and correlates (people who have already had spontaneous psi experiences, creative people, people who practice mental disciplines) were formulated by the Rhine lab. This is nothing novel to the Autoganzfeld series (let alone the FIRST batch of Ganzfeld experiments).

You are on mark here BUT... I fear that you may still be ascribing to the idea of Psychic's being something outside of "normal" or "natural" which, if you look back on some of my other posts, you will see that I've reasons for negating that assumption, lending a limited amount of kudo to the skeptic's culture, or more correctly, the academic and scientific elements of society who have, over the decades, discovered the magician's secrets, so to speak


I am a tad bit elitist when it comes to psi performance. I do believe some people are way better than normal at certain things (in the same way that Michael Jordan is not a normal basketball player). That is not to say that it is unnatural. But some people are definitely more psychic than others. It IS outside of "normal," otherwise more people would be doing it consciously. Sure, probably a majority of people have had psychic experiences. But that's a far cry from the people who are actual sensitives (people don't like the term "psychics" because of all the baggage), or psions, people actively practicing psychic abilities and try to obtain control over them, to use them on command. That's why I differentiate between"normal people," who all have intuitive potential (which is simply an emergent property of consciousness and interconnectedness), and actual psychics and psions.

I would say easily less than 5% of the population self-identifies as the mentioned two categories (both groups are technically different, but there is heavy overlap, I'll explain that in another thread, if anyone would like), many of those really don't know what they are doing because they are going off of bad information off the internet, and there are multiple (correct) interpretations for the same sorts of mechanisms. E.g., many people who ascribe to using telepathy don't believe or know that telekinesis is possible.

And obviously, this makes it that much easier for skeptics to pick any individual person apart. If being a high-functioning psychic were more normal, there would be much more cohesion, there would be much more evidence around of psychic functioning, it would be better accepted, etc etc etc. Instead, what the world looks like is a sort of general but weak connectedness, with isolated pockets of supernormal performance, due to natural ability, practice, or both. But I do agree that in order to be a good psychic, you have to have strong cognitive abilities, and be really good at noticing small details, and piecing them together, because the very nature of psychic information transmission is lo-fidelity and noisy.


And you bring up another very good point, the whole bad vibes/ subideal conditions/ self-fulfilling prophecy stuff. IF psi does exist, AND everyone does it to a small extent, why is it such a stretch to think that the skeptic in the room isn't affecting outcomes by thinking, "It's not going to happen." Right now I'm working on testing this effect, in the opposite direction. I've got a setup (identical to biofeedback, with the electrodes and everything) that people who are familiar with the totally physical process of biofeedback, expect the on-screen target to move in a certain way. In reality, it's controlled by a Geiger counter. If I get an effect, it may provide actual evidence for the subconscious influence effect.

I can also do fun things like get some skeptics and tell them, "If you have telekinetic ability, the target will move," when in reality, it has to have a significant effect to make it NOT move. By forcing the target to be stationary, they are actually pushing against the output of the Geiger counter. I'm really intrigued to see what it will do.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Craig Browning » 02 Apr 2010, 04:44

The whole idea that psi is some sort of mostly-mental faculty that requires a number of conditions for optimal usage has been around since the mid-1800s.

I believe you can go a couple centuries further back than that, just not on the more public stage (the Puritans of said eras weren’t bias as to who they burnt at the stake or hung when it came to challenging god’s word or what they thought was “natural”) Reginald Scott’s famed “Discoveries of Witchcraft” was penned in the latter 1500s and it’s known fact that Pagan as well as Christian elements were using most everything that book tipped and more, for generations prior to this.

Even at that we must understand another perspective issue here… just having a match-stick that lit when struck against a rough surface or striker plate would have been seen as proof of witchery… the use of magnets was literally taught from the pulpit to be an evil thing…

Why?

Magnetics have had a bad rap for centuries but in Medieval times the issue of evil centered on the compass; a.) it came from those vile and godless yellow devils to the east (Chinese); b.) was overly trusted by those other ungodly sinners to the south – the Moors and their kind; c.) it was trusted in navigation, which threatened the authority of the Church/Rome.

I could give you an amazingly long list of other manifestations viewed as being “Evil” and of course “Paranormal” (magickle, demonic, of the occult) by our ancestors but there is one other important point that must be weighed…

…almost every one of these things were known of and understood by the local “Wise Ones” – the Shaman, Druids, and clergy of various regional “cults”. This was especially true when dealing with folks from around Egypt, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Greece, etc. in that the keepers of the Temple Mysteries (including those of ancient Jewish/Hebrew origin) understood how to make crude chemical battery banks and exploit the energy that came from them. We know this because of several different archeological finds but most specifically those found in Cleopatra’s Temple along the Nile.

My point is, a HUGE amount of things that became viewed as “Magick” or the “Paranormal” were already known of, understood and being used in somewhat common ways prior to the rise of the Christianized-Roman Empire. This rise of military and political power along side a few bits of natural phenomena, is what brought us the wonderful era of the Dark Ages… so called not just because of the darkened skies and man’s inability to farm successfully, but because the Christian Cult’s leadership were suppressing and destroying said knowledge/technology… that includes MURDERING those who had been “initiated” into the mysteries… trained in the science tied to such things.

Most of the psi-conducive protocols (nice warm, comfortable environment, low external stimuli, relaxation techniques, meditation, mental quiescence) and correlates (people who have already had spontaneous psi experiences, creative people, people who practice mental disciplines) were formulated by the Rhine lab. This is nothing novel to the Autoganzfeld series (let alone the FIRST batch of Ganzfeld experiments).


I’m not too certain about that, I think you can go well into the mid and late 17th century and find similar research discoveries. I know for a fact this kind of stuff was understood by the Gypsy/Roma people long, long prior to the time line you’re speaking of, as did most Midwives.

I am a tad bit elitist when it comes to psi performance. I do believe some people are way better than normal at certain things (in the same way that Michael Jordan is not a normal basketball player). That is not to say that it is unnatural. But some people are definitely more psychic than others. It IS outside of "normal," otherwise more people would be doing it consciously.


Ok, I understand what you’re saying here and agree. But I think it’s better said that someone like Jordan, Johnson, etc. are just exceptional athletes or “exceptions to the rule” when it comes to comparing them to others… especially the typical human being.

Sure, probably a majority of people have had psychic experiences. But that's a far cry from the people who are actual sensitives (people don't like the term "psychics" because of all the baggage), or psions, people actively practicing psychic abilities and try to obtain control over them, to use them on command. That's why I differentiate between"normal people," who all have intuitive potential (which is simply an emergent property of consciousness and interconnectedness), and actual psychics and psions.


Ok… again I’ll encourage you to look up my previous posts so you can gain better clarity as to what I’m coming from. To my mind and based on 30+ years working in and around Psychics, the New Age, Paganism, etc. I’ve NEVER met someone that can turn it on and off on command. However, I do know many that have learned how to “turn it on” and maintain a conscious sense of “self” that allows them to be “sensitive” to their environment, including some of the most subtle energy/influence to be found in the room. I’ve found several such folks in the Military in fact; individuals that have absolutely no belief in this stuff and yet, to watch them and observe how they function in their job, you would be tempted to call them “Psychic”
The reason for this is heightened awareness coupled with a couple of other important factors; Intuition (developed over time by way of conditioning, desire and determination. This is a link between the subconscious mind, the imagination, ideomotor awareness within one’s own body and exterior “waves” of influence… all of it fed into the conscious mind in a uniquely filtered manner) Experience (part of the conditioning factor previously noted) Recall/Memory (again, an aspect of the conditioning process but in this instance we are looking at how the mind translates in-put at the association level i.e. this + this = this.

Yes, we all have these “keys” within us and yes, some are more adept as relying on them from the instinctual level (they do it without thinking about it). Then too, there are many that fit that last description who are suppressed when young because the parents have religious based phobias (fears) associated with said “gifts” and when this happens in a highly scholastically inclined (GEEK) household the child’s suppression happens as the result of parental denial and supporting fears. . . it can be quite intense.

And obviously, this makes it that much easier for skeptics to pick any individual person apart. If being a high-functioning psychic were more normal, there would be much more cohesion, there would be much more evidence around of psychic functioning, it would be better accepted, etc etc etc. Instead, what the world looks like is a sort of general but weak connectedness, with isolated pockets of supernormal performance, due to natural ability, practice, or both. But I do agree that in order to be a good psychic, you have to have strong cognitive abilities, and be really good at noticing small details, and piecing them together, because the very nature of psychic information transmission is lo-fidelity and noisy.


A decent enough argument but in my experience it’s not the skeptics you need to be concerned with but rather the Cynics… the one’s that have already made up their mind that this is how everything is in their little part of “reality” and anything that sits outside that fence is false, deceptive, untrue, tainted, to be loathed & feared… rejected

:o Any of this sound familiar? :roll:

I’m fairly good friends with some of the better known skeptics out there, people like Steven Shaw and Rick Maue… guys that know their stuff. I have fewer problems with them and even Randi the few times we’ve had conversations, than I do all the cynic’s and pseudo-intellects you find on the internet magician’s forums. The reasons are simple; most have an attitude that’s quite akin to our friendly neighborhood bigot, KevinKline. Too, most of them have about as much real world experience getting their hands dirty investigating genuine psychic fraud, dangerous cult groups, etc. – NONE! Yet, (out of Jealousy according to some) these are the one’s that feel it their right and obligation to give me crap… go figure.

And you bring up another very good point, the whole bad vibes/ subideal conditions/ self-fulfilling prophecy stuff. IF psi does exist, AND everyone does it to a small extent, why is it such a stretch to think that the skeptic in the room isn't affecting outcomes by thinking, "It's not going to happen."


It’s the old Princess & the Pea scenario and though I can understand the argument, even supporting it in some cases, I have to side with the skeptics most of the time, viewing it as one of the more typical cop-outs chanted by would-be Psychics… been there, done that, have the T-shirt and it doesn’t impress me in the least.

Yes, negative vibes can affect Psychic and Magickle work but anyone with legitimate training and understanding will pick up on the negativity long before attempting a proper ritual/demonstration. They would have purged the area and everyone/everything involved by way of smudge or some other form of grounding. I know of very, very, very few “skeptics” willing to go through all of the procedures and do them “by the book” when it comes to any sort of “testing” scenario; they feel it’s beneath them and hold such things in dire contempt. But this is one of the reasons why the old masters taught against “tempting the lord” as it were and presenting the miraculous in ways that were akin to showing off rather than fulfilling a genuine need.
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby NucleicAcid » 02 Apr 2010, 05:27

Yes, negative vibes can affect Psychic and Magickle work but anyone with legitimate training and understanding will pick up on the negativity long before attempting a proper ritual/demonstration. They would have purged the area and everyone/everything involved by way of smudge or some other form of grounding. I know of very, very, very few “skeptics” willing to go through all of the procedures and do them “by the book” when it comes to any sort of “testing” scenario; they feel it’s beneath them and hold such things in dire contempt. But this is one of the reasons why the old masters taught against “tempting the lord” as it were and presenting the miraculous in ways that were akin to showing off rather than fulfilling a genuine need.


That's EXACTLY what it is. It's in fact really easy to get around the bad vibes thing, when you know the right techniques to use (though, I've never heard of anyone asking the SKEPTICS to ground to make things run smoother, that's absolutely brilliant I'll have to try that sometime :)) And there is definitely some aspect of where if you try too much to show off, you'll get caught with your pants down.

Is it possible to put a bind on any skeptics and just flat out block any mental influence they may have on what you're trying to do?

And cynics != true skeptics. And it's sooo hard to reason with the cynics. But I do feel that if they were truly open-minded skeptics, and they took a close look at the data, they would see that there is a very slim chance that all of this is only a coincidence, and see psi as plausible (like Carl Sagan, Einstein, and Arthur C Clarke), rather than implausible to the point of near-impossibility. Unless those people I am thinking of (Randi, Hyman, Shermer, etc.) are actually cynics deep down inside.

I also totally agree with you that people knew all the factors conducive to psi from a LOOOONG time ago (I'm a practicing Pagan XD), I was talking about specifically the field of parapsychology knowing them.

As for the people who use it day in and day out, but don't see it as a psychic ability, they're still definitely some type of energy worker. Back when I was more sensitive, I would pick these people up on my 'radar.' I would eventually try to slip talk of psi into the discussion, and they would basically say that they didn't believe in it, or had nothing special about themselves. I think I understand what is going on with that now. I also think some people may have had "The Gift" and turned it off because it was too much of a distraction, and just sort of forgot about it. Perhaps I'm not allocating a large enough chunk of the population, but that could be do to the general old-school notion of it being 'a gift,' and designated to specific people. It could be used more widespread than I estimate. But I doubt much more. It has nothing to do with turning it on and off. It's just that some people happen to be really good at it, and some people can't do it no matter how hard they try. Some people 'are' (whatever that 'it' is), and some people 'are not,' and far more people lack it than have it. That's my argument for why it is more rare and not more commonplace. Also, anyone who has their 'radar up' - scanning, sensing, broadcasting energy, or just being more aware than your average Joe - tends to cluster around other people who are doing the same exact thing. Generally speaking, most of my friends have some sort of involvement in the paranormal. This can make it hard to judge how many people out there are more aware.

I think also part of the reason why I'm a little jaded is I go to a very technical engineering school, and the percentage of aware people is FAR less than, say, the art school where my girlfriend goes. Like, I've put up posters for the Paranormal Society I started, and we've been meeting for about a month, and so far we haven't gotten ANY people who are aware, that I didn't already know (or were one degree of separation from someone aware that I knew).

I will definitely have to look up your old posts, when I have time. I have a feeling we actually do think very much the same way, and we're saying the same thing about the same stuff, it's just colored different by our experiences. I do agree with basically everything you've said.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby stevetrueblue » 14 Apr 2010, 19:38

Its a trap, an obstacle a distraction for them to pose as a courtoom laywer.

They underfunctioned at school and to cover up their lack of brains they often pose as scientists and TV attorneys (so they think) demanding immediate personal proof of everything you say. But its actually betraying their desire to be spoon fed as they were at school, Theye also hope that they can off balance you with a demand like a courtroom lawyer. And if you do provide an immediate reference they will dismiss it for some shallow reason because they dont really want the proof they just want something to spit back in your face, reflecting their immaturity. (High chair baby days) Even asking to be spoon fed shows how juvenile they really are because of the miracle of google on their desktop which they overlook( no need to ask you) because they lack a key ingredient of intelligence. CURIOSITY. YOU have it but pseudoskeps don't. Thats why YOU are smart dear reader and pseudoskeptics aren't.
stevetrueblue
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 10:14

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Craig Browning » 14 Apr 2010, 21:14

stevetrueblue wrote:Its a trap, an obstacle a distraction for them to pose as a courtoom laywer.

They underfunctioned at school and to cover up their lack of brains they often pose as scientists and TV attorneys (so they think) demanding immediate personal proof of everything you say. But its actually betraying their desire to be spoon fed as they were at school, Theye also hope that they can off balance you with a demand like a courtroom lawyer. And if you do provide an immediate reference they will dismiss it for some shallow reason because they dont really want the proof they just want something to spit back in your face, reflecting their immaturity. (High chair baby days) Even asking to be spoon fed shows how juvenile they really are because of the miracle of google on their desktop which they overlook( no need to ask you) because they lack a key ingredient of intelligence. CURIOSITY. YOU have it but pseudoskeps don't. Thats why YOU are smart dear reader and pseudoskeptics aren't.


:lol: Steve, you just won yourself a fan :lol:

I've said similar things for decades now... keep it up! ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 21:18

:lol: Steve, you just won yourself a fan :lol:


Seconded!
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Nostradamus » 14 Apr 2010, 22:31

the miracle of google on their desktop which they overlook


You used a lot of 'they' in your write up without clearly defining who 'they' are.

So steve, what interests me is why you think google is a miracle? Why do you claim that 'they' overlook it?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby NucleicAcid » 14 Apr 2010, 23:50

Naturally, "they" are (pseudo)skeptics, of the variety that like going around like they are James Randi Jr, and feel that they are the end-all knowledge base and will decline to look at a piece of evidence on opinion alone. The frustrating type. Not all skeptics are like this, but many are.

Don't worry, Nos, you're exempt. You do good research.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: What is it with skeptics demanding personal proof?

Postby Fifer » 29 Aug 2010, 01:51

Craig Browning wrote::lol: Steve, you just won yourself a fan :lol:


I've read a few of your posts now and have to say you are winning yourself one too :D :D :D

I'm highly impressed with your postings buddy!!

Nice!! ;)
Fifer
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 28 Mar 2010, 20:26


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron