        |
|
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page
Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers
Argument
# 9: Science
is the
only reliable method.
Stated as:
“The
only reliable
way to know about anything is through the scientific method. All
other methods are unreliable.”
This
statement is usually
made by skeptics who glorify and worship science as their God, even
though they
would never put it in those terms due to the connotations of them.
1) First,
this is an absolutist statement since there is not just one
single way to know everything.
Other
ways of knowing things include direct observation, personal experience,
textbooks and articles, and advice from those who are wiser and more
experienced than us.
There are countless
real things I can experience that don’t need to be proved by
the scientific
method.
Even mundane examples can
demonstrate that.
For instance, I can
see rainbows by direct observation even though I can’t bring
them back to
scientists, though they can see them too if they chose to go look. I
can learn parenting through the
experience of being a parent,
and swimming by
the experience of going into the water.
Marketers and businesses
learn the marketability of their products
through surveys.
We can also learn
valuable things from wiser and more experienced people too, despite the
fact
that we didn’t use any scientific method to check them out. In
addition, I can’t prove where I was
yesterday either with the scientific method, but that doesn’t
mean that any claim
of where I was yesterday is false. Neither
can I prove what I dreamed last night with the scientific method
either, but
that doesn’t mean that I don’t know what I dreamed
about.
Likewise, if Acupuncture or
some alternative
medicine technique works for me, then I know that it works for me
regardless of
whether it’s proven by the scientific method or not.
Not
everything has to be official for it to
be true. (See rebuttal to Argument # 1 for
more on that.)
The
scientific method is a tool for testing
hypothesis and finding out things, not for defending one’s
own paradigms.
2) Second,
since successful psi results have been achieved in tests
conducted under the scientific method, (See Argument # 17
and Argument
# 18)
it can be said
that evidence for psi has been gained from the scientific method anyway. Not
surprisingly though, skeptics tend to
only accept results done with the scientific method that show the
results they want,
which is no psi results and
only chance results.
3) Third,
things don’t have to be proven by science in order to be
true. (as explained
in Argument #
1)
Many things were true and
real before science discovered or proved
them.
Though the converse of this
is
also true, why should we consider the skeptic’s subjective
dismissal as being
more reliable than one’s direct experience?
Besides, without direct
experience, how would we know anything at
all?
Greg Stone from my discussion
list,
put it very well in his post:
“But balanced
against science's supposed lack of
evidence one finds the DIRECT EXPERIENCE of those who report. And the
reports
are consistent and voluminous. Thus, while science, according to Kurtz,
cannot
weigh in definitively on either side of the equation, the DIRECT
EXPERIENCES
are a fact. And, as everyone knows, we do not need to check with
science to
confirm all the aspects of our daily lives...we did not need to wait
for
science to properly define and experiment with the atom before we could
manipulate things made up of atoms.
Experience, direct
knowledge, is of a higher order of
understanding than mere subjective speculation without experience. If
one were
to accept your argument that experience is intrinsically invalid as a
way of
knowing, then you undermine your entire position as you have nothing
else upon
which to base ANYTHING. Thus, we see the weakness of a position that
replaces
firsthand knowledge, firsthand experience with the SPECULATION of
someone who
has no experience.
Which one does the real
scientist consider more
valid... the report of a direct experience (make that volumes of
consistent
reports) OR the musings of someone with NO experience, only their
speculation?”
Where these closed-minded
skeptics make the mistake is in seeking proof from scientific
experiments
(which they invalidate anyway when they don’t get the results
they want) rather
than from direct experience, which is the ultimate true validation. The
mystic Faith Rada, my spiritual advisor
and mentor, sums this up well:
“The
fact
is your post MAY be absolutely correct and valid
BUT it
COULD also be just someone posting "lies
and
foolishness" as far as a pseudo/skeptic is
concerned." What constitutes Proof?
Actually it is a
personal thing and not a SET thing. It is THAT POINT at
which
something is able to be accepted as REAL.
Mundane words do
not hold the power to do that .. one NEEDS Direct experience. And
posting an
article that May well be valid is STILL not a PROOF when the
viewer
demands Personal experience. And they have every right
to. As
the dictionary post below.. it can be a
PROCESS. Add to
this the MAJOR problem that these pseudo/skeptics really do not WANT
proof..
because it would destroy their perspective and you end up
with an
impasse. Remember that saying? A person
convinced against his
will... is of the same opinion still. IT's EGO at
work.
PROOF
~
Etymology:
Middle English, alteration
of preove, from
Old French preuve, from
Late Latin proba, from
Latin probare to
prove -- more at PROVE
1
a :
the cogency of evidence
that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b
:
the process
or an instance of establishing
the validity of a statement especially by
derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of
reasoning
2
obsolete
:
EXPERIENCE
3
:
something that induces certainty or establishes validity
Obviously
anyone can type up ANY
statement, make ANY claim of validity and witnesses and
circumstances
that they want.. Even when we investigate there are judgments
that need
to be made. Is this person
trustworthy? Certainly lab.
scientists working on major projects HAVE falsified test
results.
People.. GASP! LIE all the time. OR they may
honestly misinterpret
things, but UNLESS YOU are directly
involved.. as in FIRST
HAND ... then it must remain 'here say'.
This does not mean
it is useless.. BUT it is certainly not living PROOF
either. I was
and still am a "skeptic" .. in the sense that with no direct proof I
will not accept. I have had The
Direct proof.. of
things within the mundane world and also Transcendent Proof
of Pure
Consciousness. The latter is "REAL" proof since it
makes
you ONE WITH the actual event ... eliminating the need for
the dualistic
mind to pass judgment on what is being "experienced" since it
lies BEYOND the mind's ability to think on.... but that is another
subject so
..... forget that for now.
It
was not until I had a number of "remote" viewing myself that I had
the proof I needed. Plus I did not depend on my own
mind..since the
finite mind canNOT be trusted.
There were at times people I could share with that
were able to
validate what I saw. They GOT proof since they were an active part of
it the
event. .. but if I were to write about it today
what would the
point BE? It is certainly not PROOF...A
curiosity to consider
for those open enough to do so, which is great, but
certainly NOT
proof.
So..
proof for those involved directly
but NOT for those who read about
it after the fact .. See what I
mean?
Such
sights as you post ARE useful. It is a good place to
start
looking... and that can allow us to be more open to our own
necessary
Direct and validated Experiences. I say validated
experiences
because the mind IS a tricky place. People do see
what they WANT to
see and do not see what they do NOT want to see.
What is even meant
by real? That is a VERY good question.
One
needs to validate for ones self... whatever that takes.
Everyone GETS to
know ONLY when it is their time to know.. to expand into their full
awareness. Not everyone Is
ready. Knowing that we are
consciousness FIRST and physical body second has a
Now I
don’t
dispute that
science is an effective way of collecting knowledge, testing theories,
or
discovering how things work.
The point
is that it is not the ONLY way.
And since
science has not disproved the existence of God, life after death,
spirits, or
psi, then there is no point in skeptics trying to use science to
dismiss those
things.
Furthermore, the best method
of
knowing things also depend on the kind of knowledge one is attempting
to
acquire.
There are many issues and
problems everyday for which empiricism is impractical or impossible. We
make many rational daily decisions both
individually and as a society that are based on no empirical
observations.
Sometimes common sense and
direct observation
are all that are required.
Dean Radin
points out in the
beginning of his book The
Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena, that new scientific
discoveries tend to go through stages.
He writes: (page 1)
“In science,
the acceptance of new ideas follows a
predictable, four-stage sequence. In
Stage
1, skeptic confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it
violates
the Laws of Science.
This stage can last
for years or for centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges
conventional wisdom.
In Stage 2,
skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible but that it is
not very
interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak.
Stage
3 begins when the mainstream realizes
not only that the idea is important but that its effects are much
stronger and
more pervasive than previously imagined.
Stage 4 is achieved when the
same critics who previously disavowed any
interest in the idea being to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually,
no one remembers that the idea
was once considered a dangerous heresy.
The idea discussed in
this book is in the midst of
the most important and the most difficult of the four transitions -
from Stage
1 into Stage 2.“
Previous
Page
Back
to
Table of Contents
Next
Page