Do you believe in paranormal things?

[surreality]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Vorpal I took precisely as much as I needed to to confirm the definition disagrees with itself, and is not, in fact, an excuse to say, "Since this word can apply to any of these things, any of these things can be used to disprove any other."

Which is what you keep doing.

You want to disprove Nessie? Disprove Nessie. But don't use table-tipping and faith healers to do it simply because people call both things 'supernatural' and think that's kosher reasoning.

Actually, it's not a matter of disproving, it's a matter of proving. If you have a supernatural claim, the onus of proof is on you.

Which is a perspective I've already stated: fine by me.

You're also claiming, below that, apparently, that if you believe one thing even can be possible, you must believe all the rest are inherently true.

That is simply and transparently absurd.

Edit: You've been consistently making the case that to believe something might potentially exist, someone must be able to prove it already exists. You don't see the logic failure there? I mean, really?

[Vorpal]

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

You're also claiming, below that, apparently, that if you believe one thing even can be possible, you must believe all the rest are inherently true.

That is simply and transparently absurd.

No- I have already said that plausible things such as unknown species causing rumors that eventually get blown out of proportion is something that's perfectly plausible and possible.

Moving things with the power of your mind, seeing the future, the past, third eyes, astral projections, ghosts, fairies, demons and gods, however? No. I'm sorry, but I always find it interesting when a religious person dismisses certain superstitions or other religions as magic or barbaric, and then goes to their temple to pray (cast spells) at an invisible person whom they assume will re-arrange the universe so that they are kept from harm. Except that occasionally the deity is capricious or mysterious and allows truly horrible shit to happen, whereupon everyone remarks on 'mysterious ways' and hopes that they can somehow do better to be worthy of divine intervention to subvert cause and effect at some point in the future.

It's kinda magic. No, really. It's magic. So is believing that the power of your special thoughts will somehow affect mass and momentum and move that coffee cup across the table, or somehow cause your brain to uplink with someone else's. We have had no proof that life after death is a thing, and yet to obstinately believe in it is a part of magical thinking- it's believing what we want to believe about the universe because it brings us comfort. I want it to be, so therefore it must be so.

Ultimately, the concept of life after death is either not true, or it exists in such a manner that it is incapable of being experienced or proven- at which point it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to us.

[surreality]

@Vorpal The edit prolly helps clarify the issue I'm having here; it may have gone in while you were typing, though.

You can probably see from that where I'm having an issue with this approach.

The problem is, plausible is a moving target.

I don't have an issue with things passing a plausibility test on a personal level -- hell, I think they should.

I do think any given thing stands or fails on its own merits or failings, however. Just because we put them under the same heading doesn't mean X impacts Y unless something more than the word used to describe them is the same.

[Vorpal]

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Vorpal The edit prolly helps clarify the issue I'm having here; it may have gone in while you were typing, though.

You can probably see from that where I'm having an issue with this approach.

The problem is, plausible is a moving target.

I don't have an issue with things passing a plausibility test on a personal level -- hell, I think they should.

I do think any given thing stands or fails on its own merits or failings, however. Just because we put them under the same heading doesn't mean X impacts Y unless something more than the word used to describe them is the same.

The board should probably have a notice when an edit happens, but that would probably be asking too much of the system When it comes to 'plausible', I think we can make reasonable guidelines for each category. In Zoology, an unusually large primate species that, somehow, managed to remain undetected except for a few people for many years is a plausible, if unlikely thing. Whereas, for example, flying, fire-breathing dragons are completely implausible.

A big frickin' lizard with a nasty bite and/or corrosive spit might be more plausible. More likely are big lizards with bad bites and an overactive imagination.

[surreality]

@Vorpal Pretty much, yeah. A plausibility test seems like a universal thing, even if people are going to set that bar in different places.

Most of the folks who think, 'this might be possible, but I don't know' do stick with unexplained, on the whole. Which I have no issue with, and think is more clear. It covers, 'this includes stuff that we may not have explanations for yet, but we might find out it's something we already understand'. They're not people who are presupposing an answer in the 'it's aliens!' <cue wild hair guy> camp, but they're not in the 'I've already decided aliens are impossible so it can't possibly be aliens' camp. (As an example, you could swap in whatever thing someone is looking at at the time, really.)

[lordbelh]

I found this a really interesting read.

[Arkandel]

@lordbelh Good read, that's for posting it.

The only thing missing from such a testimonial article is, I think, links to (anonymous of course) case studies. Not necessarily hard evidence but documentation that gives us an overview of his methodology and process, so when he concludes 'alright, in this case I can find any other explanation than the paranormal) we can form our own opinion; was there actually no other explanation at the time?

Also, and @surreality might have a field day with this, even assuming the existence of something supernatural there his conclusions about demons etc are rather narrow-minded I've found. Even accepting there's something happening there science cannot explain, is possession by a fallen angel truly the only way someone can suddenly speak fluent Latin?

[surreality]

@Arkandel said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@lordbelh Good read, that's for posting it.

Even accepting there's something happening there science cannot explain, is possession by a fallen angel truly the only way someone can suddenly speak fluent Latin?

It isn't! There's actually a known brain disorder, usually caused by head trauma, that can cause this. There's a dude now working in Chinese television originally from somewhere in Europe (I forget the specifics) who has been a case study for (thoroughly mundane) research into the effects.

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Ultimately, the concept of life after death is either not true, or it exists in such a manner that it is incapable of being experienced or proven- at which point it bears absolutely no relevance whatsoever to us.

You are familiar with the placebo effect, I presume. What is or is not true is largely irrelevant if, by virtue of belief alone, there is a measurable reaction.

I get what you're trying to communicate, and yet I disagree with many of the blanket statements you have made to date regarding organized or disorganized religions.

And I think there is a certain danger in the blanket dismissal of what is considered plausible or implausible, at any time. You may find Chuck Klosterman's new book -- But What If We're Wrong? -- interesting.

Everything is implausible until it is done. Living in Dayton, I am constantly reminded of advances by the Wright Brothers and Charles Kettering, who dared -- simply dared, sir! -- to make the implausible a reality.

[Vorpal]

We're also talking about Chuch Klosterman here. The man whose main focus is popular culture, music and sports. While his approach to American studies is interesting, I would rather not take my cues on science from him. While his views on the shifting viewpoints of history have merit, there are some fields were that approach doesn't translate exactly. Klosterman is terribly witty, but I wouldn't advice taking science lessons from Dotty Parker, either.

Again, we go down to Pascal's Wager with this. What if we're wrong about Jehova? What if we're wrong about Zeus? What if we're wrong about the Spaghetti Monster, Azura Mazda and just about any religion that has already existed or will exist? While we may be uncertain about how some things work, I can definitely guarantee you that there is a colossal leap from that, to the existence of some sort of supreme being who is intricately interested in what I do with my genitals, whether or not people chant its name obsessively enough, and whether or not people wear mixed fibers. There's a difference between the possible and the absurd, especially for an absurd for which there is no conclusive proof.

You ask the question what if we're wrong? I rather think the important question is what if we're right? The placebo effect, Pascal's wager, they all fall apart when you entertain the possibility of a zero entering the equation. Not all propositions are equal and, once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Over the millions of years that we have existed, we have more evidence for the life and mating cycles of the mosquito than we have for the existence of any god, anywhere.

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

We're also talking about Chuch Klosterman here. The man whose main focus is popular culture, music and sports. While his approach to American studies is interesting, I would rather not take my cues on science from him.

Klosterman's observation that the implausible has become plausible or that laws have been debunked constantly -- by science, within science -- since the dawn of time is no less poignant here. It is an observation, and it appears to be an apt one. As we are talking about science and appropriate propositions, I am compelled to point out that an ad hominem fallacy isn't particularly persuasive.

You don't have to believe, but, as with the opposite, I have concerns -- and then venom -- for those that would cram their set of beliefs down the throats of others. I don't need to consider Pascal's Wager when I see something which offends the part of me that is reasonable, rational, and logical.

[Vorpal]

The issues I have with Klosterman is that he often drops the context in favor of his wit. This is something he does consistently, which is why his wit is so celebrated- his witticisms have the guise of deep pronouncements, making him somewhat of a popular culture Deepak Chopra. Hey, things change, perceptions change- well… d’uh, Heraclitus observed that as far back as 500BCE. The fact that perceptions change does not invalidate knowledge. Furthermore, the fact that science evolves over time and revises wrong assumptions and hypotheses does not mean that the entire field of knowledge itself is built on a pack of cards.

If someone stating what they think concerning a set of beliefs is 'cramming their beliefs down the throats of others,' I think your definitions are a little bit off. On the whole, Atheists aren't trying to write laws to favor mandates from one particular sky-god or another, and when a presidential candidate states that they're Christian they don't suddenly find themselves completely unelectable, nor are they trying to pass laws restricting people’s freedoms based on their religious beliefs. I rather think the venom is misplaced in this instance.
The reality that you hold beliefs does not make them exempt from criticism or examination. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but it doesn’t exempt you from the opinions of others. The same goes for me.

Anyways, back to the point: I do not think it is a stretch to say that the more we find out about the universe, the more rational –if surprising- our reality seems to be. It is a reality that seems to have little room for magic or the supernatural, and it is not likely that anthropomorphic personifications of some primitive principle or other that we call ‘gods’ really do exist out there, bending the laws of physics and the universe to favor people who say important words to them. If that notion is outrageous, then we may have different definitions of what reason is. As I understand it, it is the faculty by which we integrate the data that we receive from our observations into abstractions and concepts. The very notion of a god or supreme being isn’t something that is suggested by data, it is something that is suggested by emotion- the emotional need to have someone watching out for us and who has a plan that assures us we are on an orderly path in an intimidating universe. For such a creature to exist, however, a good amount of how the universe works needs to not be so, let alone concepts such as the law of identity would shrivel in the presence of a being whose one defining nature is its inability to be defined. If anything, the sustained belief in a god and in spirits requires a steadfast denial of the data we have accumulated. This is why religion rests on faith, not scientific proof.

In this instance, it would be those who consistently insist that something exists despite proof to the contrary that would be ‘cramming their beliefs’ down someone’s throat, by your definition of it. By my definition, they’re expressing an opinion- I think a terribly misguided one, since we exist in a rational universe, but it is ultimately theirs. For them to cram their opinions down someone’s throat, they would have to create laws to ensure that religion is taught alongside science as scientific fact, that their particular rituals be obligatory at public events, and that only people who are accepted by their religion have access to legal rights.

Mind you, some people who subscribe to these beliefs do support such initiatives, but they tend to be a vocal minority – to assume that all members of one particular religion share in the traits of its extremist is disingenuous. For starters, if it were so, we would already be under a theocracy (it used to be that way, several hundred years ago, but at least in the West most religions have learned to play well with others.) Nevertheless, I do think religious thought is harmful to the individual- it sets up a belief in the supernatural and encourages magical thinking, which will be detrimental to their ability in the measure that they compromise logic to it.

Free will, though, is a thing, and people can believe whatever they want to as long as they don’t force others to believe it by law. And people are free to comment on those beliefs, too. Ultimately, one side is closer to fact than the other, with reality being the ultimate referee for that sort of thing.

[surreality]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Free will, though, is a thing, and people can believe whatever they want to as long as they don’t force others to believe it by law.

...which will never happen, because it's pretty impossible to force someone to believe in something by law. You can require lip service, and adherence to tenets of whatever faith it is as far as going through the motions is concerned, but you can't legislate that someone actually believe it.

I suppose you could legislate some kind of test of faith/belief, and brainwash people if they don't pass it, but that's more than a few steps beyond law.

[Coin]

@surreality said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

Free will, though, is a thing, and people can believe whatever they want to as long as they don’t force others to believe it by law.

...which will never happen, because it's pretty impossible to force someone to believe in something by law. You can require lip service, and adherence to tenets of whatever faith it is as far as going through the motions is concerned, but you can't legislate that someone actually believe it.

I suppose you could legislate some kind of test of faith/belief, and brainwash people if they don't pass it, but that's more than a few steps beyond law.

I don't know; brainwashing seems well within the scope of "law" if "law" is taken to an far enough extreme--an extreme we aren't that far away from and that we constantly write sci-fi about.

[surreality]

@Coin It's still not 'you pass a law, and people believe a thing'. There's a lot more to that than what the law can actually accomplish on its own going on there.

We've already seen what happens when laws are passed mandating adherence to a specific religion or avoidance of another; people continue their practice of what they originally did in private, and pay lip service in public.

Some of my Ye Olde Grancestors were chased out of Spain for marrying <gasp> Jews during the days of the Inquisition; they went somewhere else, where this was less problematic, and they could better 'keep their cover'.

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

In this instance, it would be those who consistently insist that something exists despite proof to the contrary that would be ‘cramming their beliefs’ down someone’s throat, by your definition of it.

This is a conclusion based on nothing I've written yet.

If I had a personal belief in God, and you were to ask me how I became successful, I might, in my brief wit, say that I was blessed. I don't consider this proselytizing; I consider this a statement of personal opinion based on knowledge you likely don't have (non-mystical, non-spiritual knowledge).

Now, if you came up to me and told me that there could not possibly be any evidence that I was blessed because I cannot have any evidence of any Divine Being with the capability of having any measurable relevance to my life, I would consider that "cramming your belief set down my throat." You may be, in your educated opinion, completely correct, but you are still "cramming your belief set down my throat." You are not criticizing or examining my opinion; you cannot do so without being informed of the knowledge that I possess, on which I've based my conclusion. Rather, you're belittling it based on your educated-and-probably-correct conclusions.

The original poster asked a simple question: "do you believe in paranormal things?" This isn't a complex question, and yet somehow, for some reason, we have witnessed 170+ posts of responses, acerbic and not, grandiloquent or not, for a question which begs only a "yes or no" answer.

It is not unreasonable from the sheer volume of discourse produced, that not only criticizes but, in many ways, demeans the idea that someone could believe in something for which no evidence has yet been discovered, to conclude that this is no longer a discussion or civil argument, but instead a concerted, if unconscious, effort to browbeat one or many perspectives.

So what I'm criticizing, in my roundabout way, is my observation that one group has effectively silenced another, for reasons I cannot quite fathom. If it is true that science evolves over time, as does reason, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the "paranormal" things we observe now will be quite rational in the far future, and it is not unreasonable for someone to be defensive or offended by what appears to be academic intimidation.

Some people just want to believe in something that isn't fully explainable. And if they aren't harming anyone else by it, so be it.

[Vorpal]

I think that we are ignoring the context here. When someone asks "Do you believe in X?" the answer is never "Yes." or "No."

As can be seen in every affirmative post. No, it is always "Yes, because," "No, because." It is very disingenuous to pretend that a question of that sort is ever intended as a yes-no statement and on ne parle plus.

[Ganymede]

@Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

When someone asks "Do you believe in X?" the answer is never "Yes." or "No."

Actually, that is the answer to the question. It is a question I ask all the time in depositions, at hearings, in trials, of my clients, etc. It is a question that my clients must answer, and I tell them, very clearly: "if it is a question that can be answered "yes" or "no," then answer "yes" or "no."" If I want an explanation, I'll ask for it.

[Vorpal]

That may be applicable in courts of law, where communication is constrained by procedure. This is not a court of law, this is a discussion board, a forum. The operative word is discussion, it isn't a Q&A poll with only two choices, either. I think it's pretty self-evident.

[surreality]

@Vorpal Sorry, but you really can't keep trying to change the argument.

I've called out a few things already that -- and I like you, I do! I wouldn't bother otherwise! -- I find hopelessly disingenuous and playing semantic games to weasel around them is growing a little tiresome, as is the insistence that others discuss things exclusively on your terms, yet you have zero inclination to do the same.

The double standard in this regard is getting a little beyond absurd. I mean, dude. You called out @Lithium for her use of language, when you're well aware of what she meant, to demand she use scientific terminology. You're not even being asked to discuss things in the terms that the other side of the debate uses -- but in common parlance -- and you didn't. Now, you're arguing for the use of common parlance and 'you know what I meant'.

This is sincerely ridiculous.

@Ganymede said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

It is not unreasonable from the sheer volume of discourse produced, that not only criticizes but, in many ways, demeans the idea that someone could believe in something for which no evidence has yet been discovered, to conclude that this is no longer a discussion or civil argument, but instead a concerted, if unconscious, effort to browbeat one or many perspectives.

...and I wholeheartedly agree with this. Hence the need to point out the sheer absurdity and internal contradiction of, "I don't believe in the impossible, ha ha!" when you're demanding that other people prove something actually exists before they could be even remotely reasonable to consider the possibility that something might exist for pages on end before this point. Talk about believing in the impossible, dang.