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

Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

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

Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby leo100 » 24 Aug 2009, 02:01

There was a post made yesterday from Adamwho which is a member of the forum infidels forum. One of just arguments was that their is no organ in the brain that can receives signals from another person's brain. This is of course assuming that the brain isn't a receiver for the mind[information] itself. According to Adamwho their isn't, but no where in the post does he show why the brain can't be a complex receiver of the mind instead of the producer of the mind. If their is a soul which i see a ton of evidence that support it, it wouldn't be a jump to consider the possibility that the soul itself is the organ that decodes such EM signals in the brain.

Here's his post


http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=273617

I know Winston told me it may not be a good idea to keep debating and rebutting skeptic resources, but i see it as showing to other people that may fall into only seeing one side of the debate itself.
leo100
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 21 May 2009, 23:22

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Ibison » 24 Aug 2009, 14:57

I agree that arguing with pseudoskeptics is pointless because they already have their minds made up. They care more about protecting their precious worldview than examining the evidence.

Notice how quickly he resorts to name-calling. Until he can come up with a debunking theory that actually makes sense (not to mention provides some evidence), I guess I'll remain an anti-science New-Ager.
Ibison
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Aug 2009, 17:25

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby kungfuscience » 24 Aug 2009, 20:13

Ibison wrote: I guess I'll remain an anti-science New-Ager.


How does that tie in with this:

Ibison wrote:I agree that arguing with pseudoskeptics is pointless because they already have their minds made up. They care more about protecting their precious worldview than examining the evidence.


?

Science done properly is about examining evidence and challenging world views. How can you be anti-science yet deride others for being unscientific?

My mind is made up on things, but this doesn't make it a permanent state. It could be changed.
kungfuscience
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 22:13

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Nostradamus » 24 Aug 2009, 21:47

I too found the statements by Ibison to be contradictory or at a minimum disconnected.

Proving a universal negative is usually impossible. On the old Bullwinkle and Rocky show was a material called Upsidasium that was anti-gravity. Could it exist? Unlikely given current theories. Here the question is existence of Psi. Does it definitely NOT exist? That's a question that cannot be proved with certainty.

Since the term pseudoskeptic is apparently a part of this forum's jargon I may be misusing the term in the following claim, but it seems that Ibison is a pseudoskeptic.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Ibison » 25 Aug 2009, 10:39

Well, I was being sarcastic about the anti-science New-Ager thing, which Adamwho accused anyone who doesn't completely reject the paranormal of being. I completely agree that science is about examining evidence and challenging worldviews, which is why I called Adamwho a pseudoskeptic. Instead of objectively analyzing evidence of certain phenomena, he already has his mind made up: "The paranormal does not exist." And no amount of evidence will change his mind.
Ibison
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Aug 2009, 17:25

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Nostradamus » 25 Aug 2009, 10:50

Sorry. Took it at face value and did not recognize the sarcasm.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Ibison » 25 Aug 2009, 11:27

Haha, no problem.
Ibison
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 22 Aug 2009, 17:25

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby kungfuscience » 26 Aug 2009, 19:19

Nostradamus wrote:Sorry. Took it at face value and did not recognize the sarcasm.


Also guilty as charged.
kungfuscience
 
Posts: 21
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 22:13

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Pegasus » 26 Nov 2009, 15:31

I will let you all in on a little secret...

I can tell you that the Paranormal world do NOT exist and here is why and it is quite simple.

If it is proven with the scientific method it is not paranormal at all... it is NORMAL plain and simple.

Therefore the conclusion are that there is NO paranormal world at all... ;)
Pegasus
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2009, 15:24

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Eteponge » 26 Nov 2009, 16:27

Pegasus wrote:I will let you all in on a little secret...

I can tell you that the Paranormal world do NOT exist and here is why and it is quite simple.

If it is proven with the scientific method it is not paranormal at all... it is NORMAL plain and simple.

Therefore the conclusion are that there is NO paranormal world at all... ;)

In the past, lightning was considered paranormal, it was considered to be Zeus' thunderbolts, or activity of other gods or spirits, Etc. But now that we understand what causes lightning, and what it actually is, it is no longer considered paranormal, but normal. If we understand something and how it works, it becomes regarded as normal.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Rebuttal To Positive Claim That Psi Doesn't Exist

Postby Pegasus » 26 Nov 2009, 16:50

Eteponge wrote:In the past, lightning was considered paranormal, it was considered to be Zeus' thunderbolts, or activity of other gods or spirits, Etc. But now that we understand what causes lightning, and what it actually is, it is no longer considered paranormal, but normal. If we understand something and how it works, it becomes regarded as normal.


Exactly my point... :)
Pegasus
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 26 Nov 2009, 15:24


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron