Do you believe in paranormal things?

surreality

@wanderer I've had the very mundane version somewhat often, probably because I just never have slept very well over my life; it really is pretty mundane. The first few times I can recall it happening? Were very scary -- and so I can see how some folks might attribute more alarming things to the wake-up lag effect and would be terrified by it.

The other, uh... yeeeeeeeah, we'll just say the house I grew up in was special. (Not actually my house, but my grandmother's house; she lived next door and babysat me when I was tiny and then I moved in there as a teen, etc.) Lots of weird things went down there with stunning frequency, enough that a lot of things that would flip out my friends never really phased me since I grew up with it.

I tend to be reasonably good at sending bad things packing off to somewhere else. (Ironic, considering how bad at it I am on games!) No real idea why, and there are some times I'm pretty dubious, but I've had friends ask me to come tell things to go away for them, and I see precisely zero harm in it even if it's one of the situations in which I am somewhat skeptical of what they're telling me. (Even if it's the placebo effect in those instances? That can still help them out. I'm OK with this.)

But needless to say, that isn't the kind of thing you do for very long without pissing something nasty off enough to sneak in and whallop you one. I'd apparently noped the house long enough that it happened. (I woke up after the 'this was different' with finger bruises on my wrists, the ward ripped off my door and physically broken, and aching like I'd been stretched on the rack. It was not fun.) I would have been real happy convincing myself that one was a dream or something else, but nope; I kinda count myself lucky it only ever happened the once, really. Was definitely a different thing than the medical stuff people describe as the body is trying to shake off REM sleep.

Arkandel

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

It's not about what I believe in, it's about what I know to be true. I had to know for sure, so I got off my ass and found out.

I don't intend to insult or mock your beliefs, and I have no doubt you believe in this but for some people, myself included, knowing something doesn't mean anything. There are many people who absolutely believe in any number of things so it'd be impossible to sift between 'crazy guy in Utah who believes Obama is an alien' and 'guy who saw some shit and looked into it'. But even so both of those people's testimonies must be held up against the same standard if it's to mean anything for anyone other than themselves.

The difference - for some folks - can only be made up by being able to offer conclusive evidence for a belief to be transferable. If someone thinks something is true they must be able to conclusively demonstrate that somehow to others.

Testimonies just aren't good enough. Not because they are false, intentionally or otherwise, but because our minds are simply not reliable witnesses - ask any cop. We think we see things all the time, we reconstruct what we perceive and memories are dynamically assembled together and not retrieved from a stable source.

That's why hard evidence is needed. It's not not because we're sceptics ready to cast down anything that doesn't fit our narrow definitions of the truth but because without a recreatable chain between observation ("...hey, that's weird...") to conclusion ("oh, so THAT's what happened") there must be steps in between someone else can follow from beginning to end and arrive at the same result.

I'd like to think I've an open mind. If someone can demonstrate precognition works by consistently beating, say, statistical expectations outside the margin of error in a double-blind experiment then I will believe the fuck out of it. But even though I can believe someone is telling the truth as they know it by stating they saw a guy predict outcomes in Vegas twenty times in a row it doesn't mean I am prepared to believe the same thing without that chain.

What's a good argument to loosen my requirements?

surreality

@Arkandel Here's the thing.

I've already pointed to one instance of "I don't like the inferred conclusion, so the experience must not have happened" thinking in this thread. Not, "I think there's a different explanation for that," but, "that experience is untrue because I disagree with the inferred conclusion."

Where is the testing of theories? Where is the examination of evidence? There isn't any, but there is a conclusion. It's not a conclusion about the experience at all, either, but one that dismisses the experience (which could have multiple explanations) as something that may never have occurred at all.

I think we're both likely to agree: that's not how you science.

I think I gave a pretty good example previously about how someone applied a scientific theory to an experience someone was having, an experience around which multiple people had formed theories regarding the cause. One person bothered to find out the actual cause and resolved the issue, and both of the others were wrong. I am so down with that, and it's an excellent example of what, I think, you're trying to describe as an experience being 'testable'.

But now let's look at how long we've been witnessing events people have ascribed to the supernatural, and think for a minute about just how broad that scope actually is. Pretty much every meteorological and geological event has, at some point in human history, been considered a supernatural event, from volcanic eruptions to a light drizzle.

These are things we understand now. Maybe not in full in some cases, but we generally know what they actually are.

That alone has caused our understanding of the world around us to explode with answers, and more questions. And here's the kicker: it's pretty fascinating stuff, but people have to ask the questions to find out. Too often, the question is not asked. The experience is not tested, but a conclusion is still yanked out because 'well, it could fit!' without testing that theory to see if it does or not.

Let's look at a classic: The Bermuda Triangle. An uncommonly high number of ships sink there, navigation goes wonky, and so on.

Well, 200 years ago, we knew a little about lodestones but we didn't understand electricity, and even less, naturally occurring electrical fields or consider that, "Hey, we know some rocks screw up our compasses, maybe there's something here that does the same thing!" Which, indeed, happens. Is it an angry god, ghosts, or aliens? Nope. Is it something that happens? It sure is.

High prevalence of sinkings? Oh, hey... they have a lot of methane pockets in that region, don't they. Another thing we didn't think of even 100 years ago, even if we understood the basic concept of density and buoyancy.

Notice that to recreate the effect in that video, they had to physically reproduce it. (That's something well outside the means of most individuals; let's be realistic here on that point right from the get-go.) But here's the thing about that: that shows that the theory is possible as a cause. While I personally think they're probably right, here's what it doesn't show:

That it happens the same way in the natural environment at the same intensity.
That any given incident ascribed to it happened that way.

What people are essentially doing, more often, is not even going as far as what's shown in the link. Let's say the person who observed the initial incident has no information other than, "I saw a lot of bubbles and then the ship went down," which would be the description someone could provide today as easily as they could have 200 years ago. They then sail out to the same spot, they sit there, and say, "That didn't and obviously can't happen because we're where you said this happened and we're not sinking and there are no bubbles."

And then they're calling it science. That's not science, or if it is, it is the laziest science in the world. And the vast majority of the time, that's exactly what people are doing when they're seeking to prove -- or disprove! -- things currently in the 'supernatural' cluster. The sheer intellectual laziness of it is stunning and it is no wonder people aren't learning jack nor shit from these 'experiments'.

Now, human failings and weaknesses are a thing. We know this. They do not, however, only apply to one side of this particular debate. 'Trust the answer you think you know already' is one of them. 'Believe the thing it is more emotionally comfortable to believe', 'Believe the thing that you think makes you smarter/special/chosen/superior', the list really just keeps going on and on, but it's a double-edged sword. It doesn't just swing in one direction -- or objectively should not -- and yet, it appears that level of examination and criticism isn't something people are keen to apply to their own arguments. A shame, because it's helpful on all fronts. People only ever seem to want it to apply to the other guy, and often enough that seems to put their own blinders on in the process.

Arkandel

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

I think we're both likely to agree: that's not how you science.

The thing though is, science isn't the way to go because it is, well, science. I mean I can see an argument being plausible in that we might be trying to measure things by the wrong metric. For example trying to use IQ tests based on western arithmetics to tribal people who're not even using numbers is useless as such tests are biased enough in their methodology to produce the wrong result, incorrectly showing perfectly intelligent people who think differently to be less intelligent.

The scientific method is simply the best yardstick we happen to have until a better one comes along. It did serve us well by elevating say, medicine from arbitrary observations jumping to conclusions ('he offended the Gods last week so they sent disease upon him!') into structured, peer-reviewed experiments and a constantly refined hypothesis until new practical approaches became available ('take two pills a day and come see me in a week').

What I mean to say is, I don't want to be a non-believer. That's infertile, it's ironically the opposite of what a scientist should do. Sometimes we have to begin with absurd assumptions completely contrary to our method of thinking to challenge an existing paradigm - there should be no holy cows. A good positive mind enters situations with a neutral mind and works things out from as blank a mental slate as possible else it really is no better than what the witch doctors of old ever did. And sometimes ego gets in the way of even brilliant people, insulting and belittling others engaged in the conversation for having different views than the norm.

So let's say - for the sake of argument - a poltergeist isn't part of a reliable phenomenon. Let's say it can only happen under vague circumstances, when specific combinations of factors are in place and not on demand. In that case it's not the same kind of experiment one can reproduce in a clean lab like we could do with more traditional experiments, and so the methodology itself would need to be altered to account for this anomaly; however it must still be subject to some sort of objective criteria anyway so we can eliminate or add parameters to examine how they interact with what's happening, have measurable results and be observable under machinery of some sort - it might be high definition cameras or carbon paper but there must be something to rely on at least at first.

And more than anything? More than anything this process must be subject to scrutiny and refinement. That's not a new thing! Scientists challenge each other constantly, not because they oppose new findings but because that's how we improve them. We attack notions until they hold up and then we celebrate them - and the attacker doesn't 'lose' credibility for playing that part but, rather, their contributions are arguably as important as the initial research.

By which I mean to say; there is no room, zero room in any of this for defensiveness and emotional indignation. If Newton had posted his papers followed by "... and fuck you guys if you don't believe me!" things would be different these days.

wanderer

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

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

It's not about what I believe in, it's about what I know to be true. I had to know for sure, so I got off my ass and found out.

I don't intend to insult or mock your beliefs,

Then don't. When you call it "beliefs" you're directly insulting me. You're calling my mental faculties deficient and my judgment worthless.

The difference - for some folks - can only be made up by being able to offer conclusive evidence for a belief to be transferable. If someone thinks something is true they must be able to conclusively demonstrate that somehow to others.

Transfer to me the conclusive evidence that man has walked on the Moon. Preferably you will be able to take me there so I can walk myself, or repeat the act where I can witness it.

Transfer to me the understanding of high-level mathematical proof. Make sure to explain all the silly squigglies.

Testimonies just aren't good enough. Not because they are false, intentionally or otherwise, but because our minds are simply not reliable witnesses - ask any cop. We think we see things all the time, we reconstruct what we perceive and memories are dynamically assembled together and not retrieved from a stable source.

Testimonies aren't good enough, so I'm not going to trust the astronauts who claim to have walked on the Moon. Pictures and videos don't count either, it could've all been doctored at that level, or simply shot in the studio.

That's why hard evidence is needed. It's not not because we're sceptics ready to cast down anything that doesn't fit our narrow definitions of the truth but because without a recreatable chain between observation ("...hey, that's weird...") to conclusion ("oh, so THAT's what happened") there must be steps in between someone else can follow from beginning to end and arrive at the same result.

Hard evidence? Ok, bring me a stone from the Moon and prove to me you didn't just pluck that off the side of the road. As with high level mathematics, some types of proof are not accessible to everyone, because they require certain prerequisites. Some of them are physical (getting access to the stone), some are mental (understanding mathematical proof) and some are psychological/evolutionary (developing the senses and abilities to observe supernatural phenomena). This is why I've said that I'm not interested in discussing the subject, and why convincing anyone is completely futile.

Hard evidence in physics isn't the same as hard evidence in history or psychology. Someone's state of mind and their subjective experience is valid proof within psychology.

I'd like to think I've an open mind. If someone can demonstrate precognition works by consistently beating, say, statistical expectations outside the margin of error in a double-blind experiment then I will believe the fuck out of it. But even though I can believe someone is telling the truth as they know it by stating they saw a guy predict outcomes in Vegas twenty times in a row it doesn't mean I am prepared to believe the same thing without that chain.

I also have an open mind when it comes to high-level mathematical proof but I haven't spent years studying and researching it. Should I conclude that it doesn't exist unless someone can prove it to me? Even though I barely remember arithmetic from school?

Talk to me about being open minded after you've spent over a decade researching this stuff in depth.

What's a good argument to loosen my requirements?

Having an actual experience that shakes you out of your worldview. Probably not even then, because you would be strongly motivated to rationalize it, regardless of the incongruities you'd have to ignore.

wanderer

May the fucker who downvoted my post witness his children die painfully of cancer, thank you. Are you that closed off in your mind, that anything other than the comfortable, familiar status quo is unacceptable to you? You're not in the very least interested in something completely different than a crudely materialistic existence? Seriously?

This type of petty closed-mindedness is why I always regret writing anything here. And no, I'm not exaggerating in the first sentence. People like that have made my life hell, so I am fairly serious. If you're going to downvote this post, the same goes for you.

Kanye Qwest

@wanderer I downvoted you because you're salty. Now you're double salty, so I'm double downvoting. Keep it up, it's pretty amusing!

wanderer

@Kanye-Qwest said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@wanderer I downvoted you because you're salty. Now you're double salty, so I'm double downvoting. Keep it up, it's pretty amusing!

People tend to misrepresent it when I write harshly, because if they were to write something like that, they'd have to be furiously frothing. I write such things with cold condemnation, after a life's worth of experiences to base it on.

I'm not going to be your amusement, don't worry. I've been gone for months before and I'm unlikely to return after this.

Kanye Qwest

Bye Felicia.

surreality

@Arkandel I've seen as many if not more people who are as emotionally invested in 'not real' as I have people who insist 'yes real!', but somehow, it never seems to come up from that angle -- or, I've never seen it happen. You're exactly right that we shouldn't have sacred cows, but repeatedly, the investment in 'not real' is overlooked, which fosters an atmosphere of 'dismiss with a maybe' rather than 'find out'. There are examples in this thread of it, so I'm sure you can see what I'm talking about here -- lots of verdicts rendered without the legwork, essentially.

What you're describing about the poltergeist phenomena is pretty much spot-on in regard to the problem of testing. It's why I brought up the methane gas experiment video; it's a good parallel with a physical representation. They were eventually able to figure out how to perform the experiment -- which is frickin' neat -- but the factors involved there are things people already understand how to reproduce, work with, etc. enough that they're able to construct and conduct the experiment.

We don't always have that advantage. Knowing how methane gas disperses in water is key to making that experiment work.

We're talking about situations in which, following the parallel, we don't even know if it's gas, let alone whether it's methane or hydrogen.

Which is a problem. It makes the actual testing process considerably more complicated.

Hella

No.

But that doesn't mean the thought of creepy paranormal things doesn't give me the willies at night, alone, in the dark. So on some level, I guess my brain must be open to the possibility, however remote.

Maybe?

deadculture

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

@Kanye-Qwest said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

@wanderer I downvoted you because you're salty. Now you're double salty, so I'm double downvoting. Keep it up, it's pretty amusing!

People tend to misrepresent it when I write harshly, because if they were to write something like that, they'd have to be furiously frothing. I write such things with cold condemnation, after a life's worth of experiences to base it on.

I'm not going to be your amusement, don't worry. I've been gone for months before and I'm unlikely to return after this.

Kanye generally writes in typical troll language in more serious threads. It's a shame that it's the politically correct type of troll with pre-packaged lines, though. She has the potential, she just doesn't use it.

Auspice

This thread has just become a big heap of tl;dr.

Arkandel

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

Then don't. When you call it "beliefs" you're directly insulting me. You're calling my mental faculties deficient and my judgment worthless.

Everything is a 'belief' until proven otherwise. I don't call 'the earth being round' a belief because there is conclusive logical evidence confirmed in multiple independent ways that demonstrates it.

The difference - for some folks - can only be made up by being able to offer conclusive evidence for a belief to be transferable. If someone thinks something is true they must be able to conclusively demonstrate that somehow to others.

Transfer to me the conclusive evidence that man has walked on the Moon. Preferably you will be able to take me there so I can walk myself, or repeat the act where I can witness it.

See, this is where I 'believe' you are willing to read responses and argue like an adult. I have no way of knowing that is to be true but I'll act under the assumption that it is.

For starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings .

Also we have plenty of evidence that human beings have been in space for a pretty long time, participating in increasingly more elaborate activities there as our technology allows. We have GPS, satellites orbiting the globe providing communication and TV, there are agencies in different - competing - nations all engaged in a race to extend their presence there as well as private businesses attempting to do the same.

Nothing about science demands that you must be taken to a place or watch a thing happen. In fact that's quite irrelevant since we began with the assumption that the human mind can be tricked - the evidence for some of humanity's greatest leaps has been found on the back of envelopes, notepads and plain text digital files. So if you had the expertise (I don't) you could read the documentation of how the Apollo missions were carried out, what the physics and engineering behind the endeavor were, what the plan was and how it was executed, then you could decide if you are satisfied after all.

That's why hard evidence is needed. It's not not because we're sceptics ready to cast down anything that doesn't fit our narrow definitions of the truth but because without a recreatable chain between observation ("...hey, that's weird...") to conclusion ("oh, so THAT's what happened") there must be steps in between someone else can follow from beginning to end and arrive at the same result.

Hard evidence? Ok, bring me a stone from the Moon and prove to me you didn't just pluck that off the side of the road. As with high level mathematics, some types of proof are not accessible to everyone, because they require certain prerequisites. Some of them are physical (getting access to the stone), some are mental (understanding mathematical proof) and some are psychological/evolutionary (developing the senses and abilities to observe supernatural phenomena). This is why I've said that I'm not interested in discussing the subject, and why convincing anyone is completely futile.

Not all of us are scientists. To give you a counter-example I believe in strong cryptography and I use it on a daily basis both at work in the form of RSA keys, to sign my e-mails with GPG, etc - but I am not a cryptologist myself. The extensive source code however is readily available and has been reviewed by those who are independently and now and then someone founds a flaw (see the shellshock exploit, for instance) in which case they aren't vilified, they are celebrated for that discovery.

That's where I was getting at. Having ones 'beliefs' challenged should be something to be thankful for; it's a crucial part of progress. Science doesn't work because a genius has a great idea and then everyone marvels at it and it's there forever afterwards; it works because a bunch of smart, determined people try to poke holes into it and see how it holds up. If it does, great! If it doesn't then it either collapses or becomes refined, the edges are rounded, the exceptions are noted and it moves forward.

Talk to me about being open minded after you've spent over a decade researching this stuff in depth.

No, I am talking to you now. What were the results of your decades of research? What were your methods? Show me.

Or y'know, don't, and just throw fits at anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you.

Sunny

@wanderer

Thanks for the well wishes for my kid. Way to be what you're bitching about.

Ganymede

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

It is very paranoid to think that we're watched all the time by spirits of the dead/floaty beings/whatever. I think people have guilty consciences about what they do, and they manifest those thoughts as belief in angels, demons, ghosts, and whatnot. Like I said, I've seen some weird shit, but in hindsight, it was probably all of the drugs and booze.

“People * * * like to invent monsters and monstrosities. Then they seem less monstrous themselves. When they get blind-drunk, cheat, steal, beat their wives, starve an old woman, when they kill a trapped fox with an axe or riddle the last existing unicorn with arrows, they like to think that the Bane entering cottages at daybreak is more monstrous than they are. They feel better then. They find it easier to live.”

God, I love Andrzej Sapkowski.

Vorpal

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

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

It is very paranoid to think that we're watched all the time by spirits of the dead/floaty beings/whatever. I think people have guilty consciences about what they do, and they manifest those thoughts as belief in angels, demons, ghosts, and whatnot. Like I said, I've seen some weird shit, but in hindsight, it was probably all of the drugs and booze.

“People * * * like to invent monsters and monstrosities. Then they seem less monstrous themselves. When they get blind-drunk, cheat, steal, beat their wives, starve an old woman, when they kill a trapped fox with an axe or riddle the last existing unicorn with arrows, they like to think that the Bane entering cottages at daybreak is more monstrous than they are. They feel better then. They find it easier to live.”

God, I love Andrzej Sapkowski.

As Terry Pratchett once pointed out, we're really pans narrans, the storytelling ape. We evolved in such a way that our brains create narratives so that we can make better sense of things in general- the strongest force in human history is the force of narrative itself, and our desperate need to find narratives everywhere. They comfort us and they were our early attempts to understand the universe before we developed better tools... so for millennia that terrifying flash of light and rumbling sound that happened in the sky was easily explained- it was a big guy, reaaaally big, not like us, who wielded this incredibly large hammer. What happened to people who died? They are still around, we just can't see them. And surely they must have gone to a better place. What kind of place is that? Well, it's a place that was made just for us when we die by this really powerful, nice guy/gal/dog-headed monstrosity/etc...

I consider religion a vestigial, though persistent, trace of our beginnings as a race of storytellers. And although I am an atheist, I have to recognize that mythology is always a source of very juicy stories. If anything, they exhibit the same traits as Telenovelas: there's always someone sleeping with someone's daughter/sister/mother/father, someone gets the shit killed out of them, and the characters have moments when they act like total adult babies, flip their shit and throw the mother of all tantrums with one hell of a fallout. Looking at those elements, that's like ninety percent of holy scripture, except with a bit of dictating of rules in between the hair-pulling.

surreality

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

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

It is very paranoid to think that we're watched all the time by spirits of the dead/floaty beings/whatever. I think people have guilty consciences about what they do, and they manifest those thoughts as belief in angels, demons, ghosts, and whatnot. Like I said, I've seen some weird shit, but in hindsight, it was probably all of the drugs and booze.

“People * * * like to invent monsters and monstrosities. Then they seem less monstrous themselves. When they get blind-drunk, cheat, steal, beat their wives, starve an old woman, when they kill a trapped fox with an axe or riddle the last existing unicorn with arrows, they like to think that the Bane entering cottages at daybreak is more monstrous than they are. They feel better then. They find it easier to live.”

God, I love Andrzej Sapkowski.

This is the double-edged sword I'm talking about, though.

The same logic applies thus: we don't want to believe in anything we don't understand or can't immediately explain, because then it is a danger to us. So we dismiss things, because we're afraid of the unknown. Knowing is power, and not knowing? We're not as comfortable with that, and even the wrong explanation can make us feel better, because it is an explanation.

We can't really claim that only one side of this particular coin exists.

Thenomain

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

Everything is a 'belief' until proven otherwise

I...

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

What were the results of your decades of research? What were your methods? Show me.

I...

You know, Ark, I know you really like playing Devil's Advocate (to a point where I suspect that you need some psychological help), but this takes the cake. You're all over the place, similar to the people who want to "disprove" global warming. I'd believe this was beneath you, but here you are.

We have methods for this determining what is true and what is not. Scientific Method is not a stick we measure things by. It's a way we discover those measurements. The basis of Scientific Method relies on disproving its discoveries. Without it, it would be a belief system. But it's not. Scientific Method does not have an enemy in the Bible, against Flat Earthers, against ghosts, against magic, against even Intelligent fucking Design.

And that's where I go from reading this thread with a modicum of interest to enough salt to attract all the deer in Ohio. (hint: there are a lot of deer in Ohio.) "Well, you don't really know-know, therefore what you're doing is belief" is the attack that the Discovery Institute has been doing to sell their snake oil as "science" to indoctrinate school children for the last decade or so.

Science is self-correcting. This isn't a belief. At best it's a philosophy.

We accept that it reveals truth because it's based in self-doubt. It works. If we can't accept this, then we might as well flip the table over the last three thousand years of trying to understand the world and just herp-derp our way into extinction.

Regarding Terry Pratchett and others:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”

― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

Oo, wait, I just found this one which is more appropriate to my above rant:

A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box, manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across and down a phosphorescent screen. The man listened to the engineer with careful attention, nodding his head at every step of the argument. At the end he pronounced himself satisfied. He really did now understand how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"

— Douglas Adams, paraphrase of a parable spoofing modern creationism that Adams often told, as retold by Richard Dawkins in "Lament for Douglas" (14 May 2001)

Crap, one more. I forgot how much I enjoyed Douglas' writing:

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
— Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See

Ganymede

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

We can't really claim that only one side of this particular coin exists.

No, we can't. And I don't mean to.

I just mean that Mr. Sapkowski is an excellent writer. In this case, he is the author of The Last Wish, which tells the story of Geralt of Rivia, aka The Witcher. So, the words are coming from a man who hunts monsters for a living, which very neatly fits into what you're talking about.

If you don't believe, you cannot deny. If you do believe, you must also believe there are false accounts.