Do you believe in paranormal things?

[Lotherio]

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

@Lotherio referenced a quote, suggesting 'believing in a thing harms no one'.

I did amend, the belief itself is of no harm, acting out on the belief when one things they're in opposition may be harmful yes.

Not to derail the topic towards belief in general as yes, it goes right into religion. Believing Lake Champlagne has a big fish in it that looks like a giant eel that some people call a dragon or something is not hurting anyone. Seriously, its not.

On the other hand, since we're hinting at it, yes, believing that vaccines cause down syndrome is harmful to the children not being inoculated.

But there is a big difference, one hand is a belief in the paranormal, the other is an attempt to disbelieve western science and empirical evidence.

We're on to proofs here. Science has proven medicine, and the vaccine example, the down syndrome nonsense has already been proven to be false with the scientists coming forward to say evidence was fabricated in agreement with the many other studies that already discredited it.

Science proves there are no large animals in Lake Champlagne, but is it hurting for others to rationalize there is a giant squid in it? I could see an argument, the money folks muster to fund research on lake monsters could be better spent on feeding starving families in America. I counter, how much is spent on lake monster research opposed to how much is spent on political advertising?

Which is more harmful?

[Pyrephox]

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

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

Inherently bad? No. USUALLY bad? Yes. Why? Because people who want you to "believe in" things without being willing to offer any proof or evidence for the efficacy of them usually are trying to screw you. By and large, they want your money.

I wouldn't go that far. I mean of course you're right, there are those who'll do their best to take your money in exchange for fake hope or whatever, that's one of the oldest scams in the book...but they aren't the majority.

I think most of those who want you to believe in the supernatural are just...people. They're your aunt who lost her husband to cancer and wants to find evidence of an afterlife, that ultra-religious guy down the road who comes to your door with the fervent desire to convert you into their cult, countless folks who follow zodiac this-or-that, etc. That's without even looking at some who have had unique experiences and are trying to find answers but don't really have selfish reasons for doing so per se other than satisfying their own need to know.

Sure. Most of the people who believe in the supernatural are just people, who are hoping. There's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, almost everyone I've ever seen who was really invested in /other people/ believing in the supernatural, had an agenda that had nothing to do with what was best for those other people. Sometimes they just wanted validation, and for other people to see them as special and amazing as they saw themselves (most of the amateur mediums, Really Real I Swear vampires, and shapeshifters I've met fall into this category), but a lot of the time, it was money that they wanted, or because they had a hate-on for some aspect of modern society and wanted fellow warriors to fight the good fight. But a lot of the time? Money.

Frauds, be they supernatural or psuedoscience, take advantage of people's hope and belief. I despise them the way I despise very little in this world. And I dislike it when people validate and support fraudulent systems in the name of not judging what other people believe. Which is why, as much as I WANT to believe in the supernatural, anyone who wants me to had better lead off with their A game, not tired canards like "but energy" and "science discovers new things all the time".

If you can move a penny with your brain right in front of me? Let's talk. If you can read a random sequence of numbers or images from my brain when you can't do a cold reading routine or see my expression? I'm there. If you can tell me of a place where I can definitely go and meet a free-floating ghost with my video camera? Hell, yeah. If you can lay on hands and close a current, open wound in front of witnesses? Goddamn, let's get you the biggest medical grant in the history of medicine. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Pyrephox]

Side note: There is really very little as amusing as going on a ghost hunt with two self-proclaimed "sensitives" who don't know each other. Turns out every single building we entered had multiple ghosts of horribly abused children, as the two of them wound each other up and tried to play "who's got the clearer picture of this sad spirit".

[surreality]

@Pyrephox There's a difference here, too, though -- and there's this underlying assumption that anyone who is even willing to talk about shit is advocating that others must or should believe also.

And still a lot of 'I think this is possible' being taken to mean 'I believe this is totally true!' which are still not the same thing, goddamn, people. The more that goes on, the dumber everyone is getting, and that's just depressing.

I'm not so much seeing that from the 'I think this is possible' side of this discussion. (I am seeing a hell of a lot of it, with the typical condescension attached, otherwise. Predictable, don't even have to be a psychic on that one...)

[Pyrephox]

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

@Pyrephox There's a difference here, too, though -- and there's this underlying assumption that anyone who is even willing to talk about shit is advocating that others must or should believe also.

And still a lot of 'I think this is possible' being taken to mean 'I believe this is totally true!' which are still not the same thing, goddamn, people. The more that goes on, the dumber everyone is getting, and that's just depressing.

I'm not so much seeing that from the 'I think this is possible' side of this discussion. (I am seeing a hell of a lot of it, with the typical condescension attached, otherwise. Predictable, don't even have to be a psychic on that one...)

I am all for being willing to talk about shit. Look. I have a lot of friends in my life who are neopagans. They believe in magic. They believe they can do magic. I have a lot of friends who are Southern-style Christians, who believe that they can pray about things and get very specific effects in their lives from it. I am cool with all of those people. I don't agree with them, but some of them also think it's okay to put ketchup on eggs, and that's far more terrible than their spiritual views.

But if you're going to talk about that shit, then /talk about that shit/, not just repeat "But maybe..." over and over again. There's nothing you can do in a conversation with "There's a possibility." Sure. There's a possibility. It is also possible that there's an invisible, intangible unicorn standing behind you right now. But it would be hard to have a conversation about that unicorn, because there's no way to even agree on what that unicorn might look like, much less what its purpose is, how it got into your house or office, or how the world changes with the presence of invisible, intangible, voyeuristic unicorns.

It's not condescending. It's FRUSTRATED.

[surreality]

@Pyrephox Re: ketchup on eggs, ugh, yes, agreed. I know many of the same kinds of folks, and my reactions to them vary from being chill with them to having the weirdest discussions ever that result in bizarre arguments... which should also surprise roughly no one without the need to be psychic.

What's being missed here, though? I was addressing a specific post, and a specific point in it.

I even had to go back and do it again, I mean... yeesh, you wanna talk about frustrated? Try doing that twice and still seeing people conflate all manner of other things into the mix.

"believing isn't inherently bad" -- again, too many examples either way for this statement to really stand as inherently true or false. Some instances, true. Some instances, false.

You can't generalize the truth or falsehood of the statement, however, from one instance, save for in reference to that instance.

What I am seeing, repeatedly, is essentially a lot of, "Bigfoot isn't real because magic is can't be proven to exist." "Ghosts can't be real because some religions make people do dangerous things." "Religious people are cultists because there's no demonstrable evidence that people can move things with their minds under lab conditions."

These are statements that makes no sense whatsoever, and they are what comes from conflating as much as is being consistently conflated throughout the thread.

Yeah, that is eye-rollingly frustrating, it's typical of over-generalizing and conflating too many things, and just... arrrrgh.

[surreality]

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

Side note: There is really very little as amusing as going on a ghost hunt with two self-proclaimed "sensitives" who don't know each other. Turns out every single building we entered had multiple ghosts of horribly abused children, as the two of them wound each other up and tried to play "who's got the clearer picture of this sad spirit".

(Have seen this, can confirm, is genuinely funny as hell.)

[Pyrephox]

@surreality Here's the thing, though. I think you're right, "Believing isn't inherently bad", isn't possible to stand as true or false. However, it's also meaningless to any real conversation. It's the equivalent of "It's possible that mistakes were made." It makes no point, it stands on nothing - it can't be true or false because it has no real meaning. No matter how someone tries to engage with that statement, it's not going to be sufficient, because that statement is so broad and loose that no matter WHAT the reply is, someone can then say, "That's not what I meant!" So, yeah. Using that statement sets you up for frustration.

And, for the record, my take is, "Bigfoot probably isn't real, because in decades of dedicated hunters using state of the art technological equipment, no one, not on purpose or by accident, has ever managed to bring one in. Or a piece of one in. Or find blood from one that can be reliably identified as coming from an unknown animal species. And we're not talking deep sea trenches here, we're talking the Pacific Northwest. If someone should, in fact, turn up with a dead Bigfoot, I will be tremendously interested, but suspect that the chances are very, very low, and you probably shouldn't quit your job to go into the about-to-explode Bigfoot leather industry."

Admittedly, that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker as easily. And I suspect that you may be conflating more than is being said, as well. Someone saying, "I don't believe that Bigfoot, ghosts, psychics, or angels exist," is not actually saying, "I don't believe that all of these things exist /for the same reason/." Generally, there are distinct reasons behind the non-belief of each, although many of those reasons fall into an overarching trend of "There isn't any evidence." And while I agree that "no evidence for magic" is not the same as "no evidence for Bigfoot", it IS possible that there's simply no evidence on either of those fronts, and so those two disparate phenomenon get chucked into one broad category of, "Things there is no reliable evidence for."

[surreality]

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

@surreality Here's the thing, though. I think you're right, "Believing isn't inherently bad", isn't possible to stand as true or false. However, it's also meaningless to any real conversation. It's the equivalent of "It's possible that mistakes were made." It makes no point, it stands on nothing - it can't be true or false because it has no real meaning. No matter how someone tries to engage with that statement, it's not going to be sufficient, because that statement is so broad and loose that no matter WHAT the reply is, someone can then say, "That's not what I meant!" So, yeah. Using that statement sets you up for frustration.

...and the same is true of the reverse argument, that 'believing is inherently bad'.

Which is the entire point I was making, as I was replying to someone stating this. That from either side, this statement is effectively useless.

I could read into 'funny how nobody called that statement out, but they do with the reverse, and on me for calling it out as being actually the same', but again, that's honestly more 'this is the stupid shit people should really brace themselves for when they even try to have such a discussion' re: frustration.

And yes, the reasons people think A, B, and C are or aren't happening are frequently different. As are people who believe A, think B is possible, and think C is total horsecrap. Which is why things like:

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

Yes, ghosts and demons and such aren't real. They simply can't be, based on the rather sizable amount of what we know about our universe (magic doesn't work, outside of pelvic sorcery). That doesn't mean we never ask the question "Well, if they didn't see angels, then what made them 'see' angels?"

stand out. Because most of those things have nothing to do with any of those other things. Ghosts can't exist because magic doesn't work? OK, how are those things related in the first place, beyond, "they're both things people think of in this broadest of all possible categories?" And then we skip right along to angels. It is groanworthy.

[Vorpal]

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

stand out. Because most of those things have nothing to do with any of those other things. Ghosts can't exist because magic doesn't work? OK, how are those things related in the first place, beyond, "they're both things people think of in this broadest of all possible categories?" And then we skip right along to angels. It is groanworthy.

Because we exist in a universe where the paranormal doesn't exist and isn't possible. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.” It's a matter of epistemological coherence. While strange and unusual species that may have started legends of monsters are potentially possible, the monsters themselves are not. Likewise, the existence of the devil, and of ghosts, are as likely as the existence of Thor in this universe. Ghosts, spirits and gods are all part of magical belief- an irrational notion of the universe based on miracles and the altering of the universe by acts of will or whim (magic, prayer, divine intervention)- they do, in fact, have to do with each other.

[Arkandel]

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

Because we exist in a universe where the paranormal doesn't exist and isn't possible. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one.

That's true but in an axiomatic way. What I mean is, take a perfectly intelligent, reasonable person from three centuries ago into today's world and we'll see how much of what we've achieved would cross right into their idea of paranormal and supernatural.

There comes a point where actually defining these words may be a necessity and not just pedantic MSB crap.

[Pyrephox]

@surreality Granted. "Magic" needs to be operationalized as a concept. For that matter, so do "ghosts", and "angels". It largely is useless talking about those words without establishing a common definition (and, for that matter, what would count as proof of their existence - existence, not non-existence, because you cannot prove a negative). I fully support creating such definitions!

[Vorpal]

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

That's true but in an axiomatic way. What I mean is, take a perfectly intelligent, reasonable person from three centuries ago into today's world and we'll see how much of what we've achieved would cross right into their idea of paranormal and supernatural.

There comes a point where actually defining these words may be a necessity and not just pedantic MSB crap.

I do draw a difference between scientific knowledge and superstition/mysticism. A 'reasonable' person from three centuries ago who believed in fairies isn't too different from a 'reasonable' person today who believes in fairies. Reasonable, without quotations, applies to someone free of superstitious and/or mystical beliefs but who first requires proof of a substantially important claim before believing it. Three hundred years ago people were still getting serious shit for doubting some irrelevant religious mandates, much less for doubting there was a man in the sky at all- we can't exactly look for examples of abundant free-thinking and inquiry within the context of more repressive societies. For all we know, the number of questioning individuals could have been larger, but were not exactly inclined to come out because (to quote Eddie Izzard) "they would chase me with sticks."

[surreality]

@Vorpal Dude, you're the one demanding specificity of terms.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

Note where it begins: "unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature".

We have not, actually, explained All The Things yet.

Including plenty of things that have nothing to do with gods and monsters and invisible pixies. We have more things thoroughly unrelated to pixies we haven't explained than we do things related to pixies.

That means 'the supernatural' exists per the most basic definition, unless you want to insist that science has an answer for everything, and we know factually it does not.

Note that it goes on to say it especially refers to those things. If we're going to get supremely pedantic here, especially and exclusively are not the same word and do not share a definition.

Then we've got: "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature" which essentially means 'fuck that definition above right in the ear, things that just seem to be weird count, too'.

Which is further demonstration why this word is useless, and how the conflations occur that render discussion around this term a hopeless morass of bullshit and semantics.

Would we be arguing if the word was 'unexplained'?

I don't think so. If there's one unifying universal point I'm reasonably sure everyone could agree on, it's: "Not everything is explained."

[Vorpal]

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

@Vorpal Dude, you're the one demanding specificity of terms.

That means 'the supernatural' exists per the most basic definition, unless you want to insist that science has an answer for everything, and we know factually it does not.

The supernatural exists as a concept the same way that 'god' and 'Adam Sandler's talent' exist as concepts. But they do not, actually, exist. However, formulating a concept is not the same as proving its existence- the onus of the proof remains on the side claiming such a thing exists and, in thousands of years, no such conclusive proof has been found for claims of the paranormal and supernatural, only fables and stories.

Then we've got: "departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature" which essentially means 'fuck that definition above right in the ear, things that just seem to be weird count, too'.

No, it doesn't. Things that appear to be weird but which have an explanation in accordance with the laws of physics aren't supernatural.

Which is further demonstration why this word is useless, and how the conflations occur that render discussion around this term a hopeless morass of bullshit and semantics.

Would we be arguing if the word was 'unexplained'?

I don't think so. If there's one unifying universal point I'm reasonably sure everyone could agree on, it's: "Not everything is explained."

I think the definition of 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' are pretty clear- manifestations or events attributed to some force beyond scientific principle or the laws of nature. Hence the 'super' part of the word.

[surreality]

@Vorpal That quote is in the linked definition. It's not something I yanked out of my ass.

You're the one who is insisting on linguistic specificity.

Are you wondering why I'd take the dictionary as an authority over your personal interpretation and definition in this conversation? Dude...

[Vorpal]

@surreality Yeah, let's talk about the definition, shall we?
You definitely cherry-picked your entry, because under "Simple Definition" -which is the top of the page you linked, it states:

unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc

"Full Definition of 'Supernatural' , number one states " of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil" - and you went for the secondary definition, but literal a only, while ignoring its sub-entry. In fact, two of the three definitions are of this caliber, with the second (middle) definition referring only to things which appear to be a of a character that transcends the laws of nature- so the second definition, in fact, is a reference to the other full definition and to the simple definition, not the stand-alone definition you want it to be.

It's right there on the dictionary you linked. If we use it as an authority, I'm afraid your own example just undermined you.

[surreality]

@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.

[Arkandel]

Vorpal said in Do you believe in paranormal things?:

I think the definition of 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' are pretty clear- manifestations or events attributed to some force beyond scientific principle or the laws of nature. Hence the 'super' part of the word.

Of the currently understood laws of nature's scope. Of things which are sort of kind of on the horizon from where we are at.

For example if I was told there may be a machine that cab conjure any food I like from a huge list, perfectly cooked and seasoned seemingly from nothing almost instantly that's not supernatural to me. I mean it doesn't exist, it won't exist within my lifetime or maybe even ever but we have 3D printers and Star Trek has visualized it already so... well, it's within the scope of my understanding.

But that's kind of what supernatural kids' tales sounded like during the time Isaac Newton was alive. That's the kind of treasure you recovered from a troll's lair or whatever the hell. That's without going into marvels like devices that let you talk instantly with almost anyone on the planet any time you like which can also make instant picture-perfect paintings of anything you point them at and much more. I think both these things would be legitimately considered magic by scholars of the age because nothing remotely like them existed - and if we asked them which of the two was more likely to be real I don't know the correct answer would be obvious to them.

Now, I don't believe in ghosts or spirits. But - for the sake of argument, I don't actually believe that either - let's say one of the multiverse theories is true and some people can somehow get glimpses of a neighboring parallel one, similar to how teenagers can hear sounds at higher frequencies... that's kinda different, right? They might be actually perceiving Aunt Martha when they're at her house - who just happens to be alive in her own parallel reality - and at that point aren't they essentially communicating with the dead?

(Again, that's an example, I've no reason to think it's actually the case)

[Vorpal]

@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.

As for Nessie the Loch ness monster? I'm afraid to say that now he is very much in the same category of the supernatural as faith healers, gods and fairies. The lake has been exhaustively searched, monitored, and it has been established no such creature could possibly live there under the conditions of the lake and its food chain. Yet belief on the fucker persists despite proof to the contrary- hence, it is superstitious belief, exactly along the same lines of the charlatans who wave crystals around and tell you that you used to be Marie Antoinette in a past life and, incidentally, you were also totally Tomyris and that is the reason why you can pull off such bitchin' headgear. And, by the way, we're all born with a mark of evil in our souls because a woman whose existence we can't prove snacked on a fruit at a non-specific time in the past in a non-specific place, and this is all true.