• Xtrix
    4.1k
    And yet you are not willing to consider me to be sincere when I have made such claims.dclements

    On the contrary, I think you're very sincere. I'm sure you think you've seen ghosts and ouija boards move, etc.

    attacking straw men (with your arguments arguing against goblins and zombies which I have said nothing about) that you don't even know what I'm saying.dclements

    I know you haven't mentioned them. There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts.

    All I said was I was at a cemetery on night (the actual cemetery happened to be Union in CT which has a history of things happening), one of the people I was with decided to walk further in than the rest of us, and when I shined a flashlight on him for a brief second I could see what appeared to be a combination of white and black shadows surrounding him and then they where gone. To me it would have been nothing more than a "trick of the light" (other than perhaps the sensation that there was a crowd surrounding the guy in the cemetery), except the person that brought us there said "Yes" when I asked him if he saw what I saw and he was visibly shaken from the experience.dclements

    And you conclude from this what exactly?

    Do you know how many physical phenomena there are where something is able to move do to physical forces we can not see? For instances there is magnetism that allow objects to be either drawn together or apart by "invisible forces that can not be seen by the naked eye".dclements

    Sure. Gravity is a force -- pulls objects towards the earth all the time. I can't "see" gravity itself. True enough.

    And it's also true that ouija boards don't move on their own.
  • Yohan
    671
    Who knows if there are ghosts, aliens, or practically infinite number of unknown things in this mostly unknown world?

    Its like if a deep sea fish claimed there is no such thing as animals that can fly or no such thing as animals that can live outside of water, or no such thing as technologically advanced talking apes who built technology with which they can fly.

    The knee jerk sceptics have been holding back scientific and technological advancements, thinking they are protecting it
  • Yohan
    671
    There's as much evidence for goblins and zombies as there is for ghosts.Xtrix
    I think this is appeal to ridicule?
  • dclements
    493
    And you conclude from this what exactly?Xtrix

    I basically conclude that I saw something that was unlike things that I have seen before. Obviously seeing something (as well as others seeing it) for just a second or two isn't enough to draw any conclusion. To be honest I would like to know of a real scientific explanation for such things.

    And it's also true that Ouija boards don't move on their own.Xtrix

    Yes, of course they don't just move on their own but the question is what makes them move. I know that it is a given that people who have never used a Ouija boards (or more specifically never used it where it seems like it is moving on it's own) think that people are deliberately moving the plank, but those that have used it and the plank seems to move on it's own I'm sure would like to know what is causing it to do so. I could speculate that perhaps people that use it in the way were it moves on it's own are somehow subconsciously making it move but I'm pretty sure even that would be pretty hard to explain how that happens.
  • dclements
    493
    Who knows if there are ghosts, aliens, or practically infinite number of unknown things in this mostly unknown world?

    Its like if a deep sea fish claimed there is no such thing as animals that can fly or no such thing as animals that can live outside of water, or no such thing as technologically advanced talking apes who built technology with which they can fly.

    The knee jerk sceptics have been holding back scientific and technological advancements, thinking they are protecting it
    Yohan
    I more or less agree. Although we have come a long way over the last few hundreds of years. I agree that we are far from knowing about everything about the world around us.
  • Yohan
    671
    I more or less agree. Although we have come a long way over the last few hundreds of years. I agree that we are far from knowing about everything about the world around us.dclements
    Thanks. I don't agree that "we" have advanced a long way, on average, over the last few hundreds of years. But could be that we are measuring society by different metrics. I would say that technology has advanced. Not people. I am open to the possibility I am wrong.
  • Bylaw
    246
    I think the problem, to put it at an abstract level is this.

    Person A: I think phenomenon A is real.
    Person B: phenomenon A can't be real because it doesn't (seem to) fit with current scientific models.

    Person B may think they are being scientific, but they are not. And there are instances where people quite correctly said that certain phenomena were real that did not fit with then current scientific models...and they were correct. So, this kind of dismissing is speculative.
  • Xtrix
    4.1k
    I’ll continue to dismiss ridiculous claims with no evidence, with zero apologies.

    The issue is evidence, not sophomoric ideas about what “science” is.

    Maybe we’re wrong about the teapot orbiting Mars, or about goblins. I suppose “dismissing” these things is also being “unscientific.” Give me a break.

    More silly justifications for belief in magic and general nonsense. I hear it from creationists, astrologers, psychics, and flat earthers all the time. Same arguments.

    I suggest growing up. A good antidote to childish beliefs.
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    I think the problem, to put it at an abstract level is this.

    Person A: I think phenomenon A is real.
    Person B: phenomenon A can't be real because it doesn't (seem to) fit with current scientific models.
    Bylaw

    I think that's a bit limited but we're getting there.

    There's also Person C: phenomenon A is intriguing but cannot be definitively described until there is sufficient reason/evidence to make a specific interpretation. 'I don't know' is not the same thing as 'it's a ghost' or 'it's not a ghost'.
  • Bylaw
    246
    Sure. Absolutely. I didn't my that my very simple schema was the range of reactions. I meant that some of the interactions in the thread follow the schema I outlined. And Person C, need not even find it intriguing. There can be Person D who says, I find it more likely that it is phenomenon X, which you are interpreting as A. However I don't know. I would be open to evidence should it come along. IOW various forms of 'agnosticism' using that term metaphorically for a position on phenenoma other than a deity.
  • Tom Storm
    5k
    \ :up: Got ya.

    I generally side with science and empiricism, but hopefully not to the point of fundamentalism. My version of science does not 'uncover facts' about the universe, it provides us with tentative theories or narratives that work, until they don't. Or something like that.
  • Bylaw
    246
    My version of science does not 'uncover facts' about the universe, it provides us with tentative theories or narratives that work, until they don't. Or something like that.Tom Storm
    Lovely. Me too. And hey, I have some fringe beliefs - though often with some scientist backers out there - but I would say I have a similar relationship to models/theories/narratives. I do think experience plays a huge role in what we believe and that sometimes living as if X is true, even if it cannot now be demonstrated to be true to create a scientific consensus, can be rational, and I can point to historical instances. It is not easy having a tentative, sometimes as if, reevaluating set of beliefs. This means I have a lot of responsibility. I wish I could simply do what a lot of people do, pick my authorities and give it all to them. But fortunately and unfortunately I had some experiences while a child that showed me early on that experts in a field, a consensus, could have some serious paradigmatic problems and/or self-interest skewing their views. The school of hard knocks. This does not mean I assume experts are wrong. Hardly. I rely on experts all the time. It does mean I am more open to things that either are not confirmed by expert consensus or are denied by expert consensus. Especially if I can see a paradigmatic bias or powerful interests with influence involved. And of course I tend to turn to experts to help me understand and to critique.

    Frankly I envy people who feel comfortable passing all responsibility on to expert consensus all the time. And then I also don't envy them.
123Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.