ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags auras , hallucinations

Reply
Old 11th December 2017, 07:47 AM   #241
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Here's another way of looking at it rather than focusing on the 'burden of proof' for it's own sake. Let's assume that the idea isn't to prove (disproving being logically impossible in most cases) as an end in itself, it's to establish where we spend our time and money researching the phenomena.

Scenario 1. We assume paranormal powers aren't possible and challenge those who claim they can do things believed impossible to prove it under controlled conditions that seek to preclude cheating or use of mundane cues, consciously or subconciously.

Result: No one has yet passed this challenge so no previously established assumptions are overturned, however, if someone does pass we will have a subject of study, and an individual who can perform the feat under controlled conditions and possibly teach other people to do it. All systems go!

Situation 2. We assume supernatural powers do exist and anyone who claims they have them do have them.

Result. Lots of wasted time and money researching disparate claims by people who believe that they have powers only to find that there are natural explanations for what they do. But what the hell, there must be powers out there right? Even more time researching deliberate frauds.

Scientist 1. We've spent months studying Uri Gellar, shame it turned out to be fake in the end...
Scientist 2. never mind we've got a Sylvia Brown who makes interesting claims to investigate next!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2017, 08:08 PM   #242
Wonder234
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Suppose I say that there is a 10-million dollar treasure buried 30 feet deep in middle of the field at the end of Maple Road, and I want you to go dig it up.

Don't you think that you would want some assurance that it is really there before you go get a shovel and start digging? So you ask me how I know it's there.

I say, "Because I have this wonderful map that I bought for $3.00 from someone on the Internet!"

And you say, "Come on, xterra, you can't possibly believe someone would sell you a map to a 10-million dollar treasure for $3.00!"

And I say, "But, Wonder234, prove to me that it's not there."

Are you gonna grab the shovel, roll up your sleeves and start digging?

Or are you gonna say, "Sorry, pal, you're gonna have to dig it up yourself, or provide me with proof that it's really there"?
Yes, when you put it that way, I would rather have you prove that there is actually a treasure there before I started digging. Mainly because I think I shouldn't put in work for something I'm not sure about. Imagined like that, I see the problem with me shifting the burden of proof.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 12:19 PM   #243
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 961
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Yes, when you put it that way, I would rather have you prove that there is actually a treasure there before I started digging. Mainly because I think I shouldn't put in work for something I'm not sure about. Imagined like that, I see the problem with me shifting the burden of proof.
The burden of proof also depends on what you are claiming.

If, say a 11 year old and a 16 year old girls claimed that while walking in a garden in spring that they saw flowers in the garden then I would say that their say so meets the burden of proof because of the banal, prosaic nature of their claim.

If, however, they claimed that while walking in the garden in spring they saw real Fairies which no one else can see then their claim requires a much higher level of proof than their say so.
Pacal is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 05:06 PM   #244
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
The burden of proof also depends on what you are claiming.

If, say a 11 year old and a 16 year old girls claimed that while walking in a garden in spring that they saw flowers in the garden then I would say that their say so meets the burden of proof because of the banal, prosaic nature of their claim.

If, however, they claimed that while walking in the garden in spring they saw real Fairies which no one else can see then their claim requires a much higher level of proof than their say so.
To expand on this: we say that "I saw some flowers in the garden" meets the burden of proof because we know that flowers exist, gardens exist, and that people walk through gardens and see flowers. Since nothing sticks out about this claim that is all unusual, we provisionally accept it as true.

Do note the "provisionally" there - if evidence is provided that the speaker did not walk through a garden, or that the garden in question contained no flowers, we would reject the claim. But, for the moment, we are prepared to accept it as true, seeing as we do not have any such contradictory evidence.

The claim of fairies, on the other hand, fails to meet the burden of proof. "I saw fairies in the garden" asserts that fairies exist, that they dwell within a particular garden, and that the speaker observed them personally - all of which are claims that have absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 08:17 PM   #245
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Thus it's said by the Wise: He who'd take the clam, is a bear in the Bird Den of Proof.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 08:21 PM   #246
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
I spent all day yesterday searching for evidence of wild elephants in England's Chiltern Hills. I didn't find any. Why do you think my investigation didn't yield strong evidence of elephants?
Actually those hills contain Whipsnade Zoo, which I am sure has elephants. So maybe the rumors were true?
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 10:24 PM   #247
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
Originally Posted by Nonpareil View Post
To expand on this: we say that "I saw some flowers in the garden" meets the burden of proof because we know that flowers exist, gardens exist, and that people walk through gardens and see flowers. Since nothing sticks out about this claim that is all unusual, we provisionally accept it as true.
unless said 11 year old was being accused of a crime that meant she had to be someplace else, then the park and flowers story would need some more evidence.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2017, 11:00 PM   #248
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,020
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
unless said 11 year old was being accused of a crime that meant she had to be someplace else, then the park and flowers story would need some more evidence.
Yep. That's the "apathy factor", and is part of why we accept it as provisionally true. If it seems plausible and we have no particular interest in its truthfulness, we accept the statement just because we don't give enough of a hot tin **** to reject it.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2017, 04:20 AM   #249
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by BadBoy View Post
Actually those hills contain Whipsnade Zoo, which I am sure has elephants. So maybe the rumors were true?
Elephants in Whipsnade Zoo wouldn't qualify as the 'wild elephants' I specified I was looking for.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2017, 07:37 AM   #250
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 2,944
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
Yes, when you put it that way, I would rather have you prove that there is actually a treasure there before I started digging. Mainly because I think I shouldn't put in work for something I'm not sure about. Imagined like that, I see the problem with me shifting the burden of proof.


Now that you see who carries the "burden of proof," let's take it a step further.

"Well, darn," I say. "I wanted you to start digging. Okay, what would count as evidence for the $10 million being there?" [Did I mention that the $10 million is not bills? No? Sorry. It's gold coins?]

"Look, xterra," you say, "I need a you to get a ground-penetrating radar out there, operated by a trained specialist, who can scan for the money, and show us the evidence on the screen."

"But, Wonder234, you don't understand!" I tell you, "Normal everyday, sophisticated high-tech equipment, developed at enormous expense by people with genius-level IQs ... that equipment can't see the gold. Only people with special powers can see it. That's the reason the map was so inexpensive."

I pause, then say, "Okay Wonder (I can call you Wonder, can't I), now that you understand, start digging!"



What's your response?
__________________
Over we go....
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2017, 08:47 AM   #251
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Now that you see who carries the "burden of proof," let's take it a step further.

"Well, darn," I say. "I wanted you to start digging. Okay, what would count as evidence for the $10 million being there?" [Did I mention that the $10 million is not bills? No? Sorry. It's gold coins?]

"Look, xterra," you say, "I need a you to get a ground-penetrating radar out there, operated by a trained specialist, who can scan for the money, and show us the evidence on the screen."

"But, Wonder234, you don't understand!" I tell you, "Normal everyday, sophisticated high-tech equipment, developed at enormous expense by people with genius-level IQs ... that equipment can't see the gold. Only people with special powers can see it. That's the reason the map was so inexpensive."

I pause, then say, "👌 Wonder (I can call you Wonder, can't I), now that you understand, start digging!"



What's your response?

Well, you've got me convinced, if those egg heads can't prove that magic, undetectable, xterra-gold doesn't exist!

I'll get my shovel!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 04:59 PM   #252
Wonder234
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Now that you see who carries the "burden of proof," let's take it a step further.

"Well, darn," I say. "I wanted you to start digging. Okay, what would count as evidence for the $10 million being there?" [Did I mention that the $10 million is not bills? No? Sorry. It's gold coins?]

"Look, xterra," you say, "I need a you to get a ground-penetrating radar out there, operated by a trained specialist, who can scan for the money, and show us the evidence on the screen."

"But, Wonder234, you don't understand!" I tell you, "Normal everyday, sophisticated high-tech equipment, developed at enormous expense by people with genius-level IQs ... that equipment can't see the gold. Only people with special powers can see it. That's the reason the map was so inexpensive."

I pause, then say, "Okay Wonder (I can call you Wonder, can't I), now that you understand, start digging!"



What's your response?
I would say that your claim that today's most advanced technology is unable to detect the gold is suspicious, and find it even more suspicious that the gold can only be detected with the use of special powers and ask for proof that these special powers exist.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 05:20 PM   #253
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 2,944
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I would say that your claim that today's most advanced technology is unable to detect the gold is suspicious, and find it even more suspicious that the gold can only be detected with the use of special powers and ask for proof that these special powers exist.

Good thinking! Right answer!

Now let's apply this to your initial claim here, but not quite in the way you asked us.

You started by writing, "I do a practice that is intended to 'open' my third eye. The practice is chanting the sound OM for 10 minutes a day, twice a day."

Why did you start this?

Who told you that this worked?

(How) did they demonstrate it?



What was your initial reaction? (Mine would have been, "I'm not ready to get my shovel -- at least not to dig for the gold.")



Yes, I know you see where we're going, but let's take it a step at a time, while P.J. is out there in the field digging.
__________________
Over we go....
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2017, 10:52 PM   #254
Apology
This title intentionally left blank
 
Apology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,126
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Suppose I say that there is a 10-million dollar treasure buried 30 feet deep in middle of the field at the end of Maple Road, and I want you to go dig it up.

Don't you think that you would want some assurance that it is really there before you go get a shovel and start digging? So you ask me how I know it's there.

I say, "Because I have this wonderful map that I bought for $3.00 from someone on the Internet!"

And you say, "Come on, xterra, you can't possibly believe someone would sell you a map to a 10-million dollar treasure for $3.00!"

And I say, "But, Wonder234, prove to me that it's not there."

Are you gonna grab the shovel, roll up your sleeves and start digging?

Or are you gonna say, "Sorry, pal, you're gonna have to dig it up yourself, or provide me with proof that it's really there"?
Clearly someone has never watched "The Curse of Oak Island".
Apology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2017, 03:56 AM   #255
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I would say that your claim that today's most advanced technology is unable to detect the gold is suspicious, and find it even more suspicious that the gold can only be detected with the use of special powers and ask for proof that these special powers exist.
Great now apply this to your own claim-:

I would say that your claim that today's most advanced technology is unable to detect the ability to 'open' the third eye, auras, or ghosts is suspicious, and find it even more suspicious that the auroras and ghosts can only be detected with the use of special powers and ask for proof that these special powers exist.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2017, 05:56 AM   #256
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Scenario 1. We assume paranormal powers aren't possible

Situation 2. We assume supernatural powers do exist and anyone who claims they have them do have them.
Theoretically speaking, a third option should exist:

Circumstance 3. We acknowledge that science has not necessarily discovered all natural forces yet, possibly not all matter either. We also theorize that a supernatural or other dimension of existence might not be subject to "our" laws of nature. However, if claims are made concerning these, we refuse to acknowledge such claims as facts unless proven otherwise. Which is practically the same as Scenario 1. but with less arrogance in our tone of voice.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2017, 09:27 AM   #257
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Theoretically speaking, a third option should exist:

Circumstance 3. We acknowledge that science has not necessarily discovered all natural forces yet, possibly not all matter either. We also theorize that a supernatural or other dimension of existence might not be subject to "our" laws of nature. However, if claims are made concerning these, we refuse to acknowledge such claims as facts unless proven otherwise. Which is practically the same as Scenario 1. but with less arrogance in our tone of voice.
It was an explanation of burden of proof, the point was why the null hypothesis is sensibly set as "doesn't exist" rather than "does exist". If you think that's arrogance fine, bring some evidence to the table. Funnily enough I find the attitudes of many believers toward scientists very arrogant, but I don't claim to be the tone police...

Eta: Oh, and cutting out everything I wrote about challenging those who claim to have these abilities to provide evidence of those powers and my stating that if they do it means we are then in the position to study the powers and learn them, (without, I would note, even indicating that you had edited my post), distorts the meaning of what I was saying to make it a conclusion rather than an explanation of the starting points.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 18th December 2017 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Additional point
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2017, 09:41 AM   #258
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Here's another way of looking at it rather than focusing on the 'burden of proof' for it's own sake. Let's assume that the idea isn't to prove (disproving being logically impossible in most cases) as an end in itself, it's to establish where we spend our time and money researching the phenomena.

Scenario 1. We assume paranormal powers aren't possible and challenge those who claim they can do things believed impossible to prove it under controlled conditions that seek to preclude cheating or use of mundane cues, consciously or subconciously.

Result: No one has yet passed this challenge so no previously established assumptions are overturned, however, if someone does pass we will have a subject of study, and an individual who can perform the feat under controlled conditions and possibly teach other people to do it. All systems go!


Situation 2. We assume supernatural powers do exist and anyone who claims they have them do have them.

Result. Lots of wasted time and money researching disparate claims by people who believe that they have powers only to find that there are natural explanations for what they do. But what the hell, there must be powers out there right? Even more time researching deliberate frauds.

Scientist 1. We've spent months studying Uri Gellar, shame it turned out to be fake in the end...
Scientist 2. never mind we've got a Sylvia Brown who makes interesting claims to investigate next!
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Theoretically speaking, a third option should exist:

Circumstance 3. We acknowledge that science has not necessarily discovered all natural forces yet, possibly not all matter either. We also theorize that a supernatural or other dimension of existence might not be subject to "our" laws of nature. However, if claims are made concerning these, we refuse to acknowledge such claims as facts unless proven otherwise. Which is practically the same as Scenario 1. but with less arrogance in our tone of voice.
This shows just how much of my post was cut out (without indicating it had been cut at all) in order to make it sound like I wasn't advocating acknowledging such claims if proven (or even strongly evidenced).
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 18th December 2017 at 09:42 AM.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 04:25 AM   #259
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
It was an explanation of burden of proof, the point was why the null hypothesis is sensibly set as "doesn't exist" rather than "does exist". If you think that's arrogance fine, bring some evidence to the table.
Don't take my reference to arrogance personally. I use it for the skeptical and atheist movement generally.

Null hypothesis is not true by default. The default is that we don't know.

I say, a person called Jambour Singhabourta lives in New Delhi. He is 33 years old and has 5 kids.

Someone else says that this is not true. The null hypothesis.

In the absence of any evidence, the latter of these claims might be a bit more plausible, but nevertheless it is not true by default. The default is that we don't know.

The history of science would contain several moments when a null hypothesis was regarded as true, but eventually it wasn't, because not enough was known about the laws of nature back then.

Last edited by JJM 777; 19th December 2017 at 04:28 AM.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 05:02 AM   #260
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Null hypothesis is not true by default. The default is that we don't know.
That's fine until you need to make a decision. "My dowsing rod says there's a fortune in gold buried 100 metres below this concrete floor". Is the claim true? You can say "I don't know", but you still need to decide whether to go to the trouble of digging or not, and you need to pick an hypothesis to make that decision. You must either assume the claim is true and dig, or assume the null hypothesis is true and do nothing. Your choice of action tells us which hypothesis you think should be the default.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 06:10 AM   #261
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
That's fine until you need to make a decision. "My dowsing rod says there's a fortune in gold buried 100 metres below this concrete floor". Is the claim true? You can say "I don't know", but you still need to decide whether to go to the trouble of digging or not, and you need to pick an hypothesis to make that decision. You must either assume the claim is true and dig, or assume the null hypothesis is true and do nothing. Your choice of action tells us which hypothesis you think should be the default.
Which was, of course, the point of my original post (before ninety percent of it was edited out to remove references to evidence and study in order to demonstrate how skeptics arrogantly dismiss claims in two lines and should instead be interested in evidence and study).
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 06:20 AM   #262
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Don't take my reference to arrogance personally. I use it for the skeptical and atheist movement generally.
Don't edit my post to strawman me and then refer to the attitude you've presented as arrogant and I won't take it personally.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 06:34 AM   #263
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,716
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
I say, a person called Jambour Singhabourta lives in New Delhi. He is 33 years old and has 5 kids.

Someone else says that this is not true. The null hypothesis.

In the absence of any evidence, the latter of these claims might be a bit more plausible, but nevertheless it is not true by default.
No, but on nothing but your unsupported word I'm not going to bother sending him a Christmas card.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 02:09 PM   #264
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,446
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
The scenario is this:

I do a practice that is intended to "open" my third eye. The practice is chanting the sound OM for 10 minutes a day, twice a day. I do the practice for a couple of weeks, and eventually something happens, you can call it my third eye opening just for the sake of argument. All of a sudden I see what looks like auras, see what looks like ghosts, and feel what seems to be other people's emotions. What would you, if you are a materialist, say about this as a materialist? And for the sake of the thread we'll just say a materialist is someone who believes that there are no supernatural entities.
I would first suggest you see a brain specialist because maybe there is something going on that developed coincidentally with your spiritual practice. Maybe it's a tumor?

If there is nothing organic going on with your brain, then I would chalk it up to a delusion (or, less charitably, lying) on your part. You may be convinced they are real but they have no effect on the material world that other people can see/feel/measure/detect so, objectively, they are not real.

You can posit some supernatural plane of existence that you have tapped into. But again, this is delusion or lying. All you are doing is creating a circular logic, "turtles all the way down," scenario. If you can't produce a material effect in the material world that everyone can detect, then you aren't talking about something real. You are just engaging in mental masturbation and I'd like to be clear of the splash zone.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 03:24 PM   #265
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You are just engaging in mental masturbation and I'd like to be clear of the splash zone.
That's the best thing I've read today, thank you for the much needed laugh!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 08:16 PM   #266
Wonder234
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Good thinking! Right answer!

Now let's apply this to your initial claim here, but not quite in the way you asked us.

You started by writing, "I do a practice that is intended to 'open' my third eye. The practice is chanting the sound OM for 10 minutes a day, twice a day."

Why did you start this?

Who told you that this worked?

(How) did they demonstrate it?



What was your initial reaction? (Mine would have been, "I'm not ready to get my shovel -- at least not to dig for the gold.")



Yes, I know you see where we're going, but let's take it a step at a time, while P.J. is out there in the field digging.
I understand not wanting to waste time doing a practice that may not do anything, but if the practice did do something (not necessarily anything paranormal) and you had no other resources to find out what the practice would do, wouldn't that leave doing the practice as the best means to find out what the practice would do? I'm not saying to not take the null position, but wouldn't it not be advisable for you to dismiss the practice when trying it is the only way to find out if it leads to anything (again, not necessarily paranormal).
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 09:09 PM   #267
Matthew Ellard
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,773
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I'm not saying to not take the null position, but wouldn't it not be advisable for you to dismiss the practice when trying it is the only way to find out if it leads to anything (again, not necessarily paranormal).
The joke version of this is the boy who claims clicking his fingers keeps away Polar bears in Manhattan.

There is no point attempting to get a result if you have no definition of what the result is. Before you can claim an activity might generate "auras" you would need to set out a working hypothesis as to what an aura is. If you can't do that you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore you are going around in circles.


Falsifiability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2017, 11:36 PM   #268
xterra
So far, so good...
 
xterra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 2,944
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I understand not wanting to waste time doing a practice that may not do anything, but if the practice did do something (not necessarily anything paranormal) and you had no other resources to find out what the practice would do, wouldn't that leave doing the practice as the best means to find out what the practice would do? I'm not saying to not take the null position, but wouldn't it not be advisable for you to dismiss the practice when trying it is the only way to find out if it leads to anything (again, not necessarily paranormal).


Okay, but I am trying to find out what convinced you personally that there is a third eye, or that the chanting works, and/or that there are auras to be seen. Please go back to my questions:


Why did you start this?

Who told you that this worked?

(How) did they demonstrate it?


For the part I highlighted, could you explain whether you looked for other resources and if so what happened?

PLEASE understand that these are real questions. I am not making fun of you or being snide.
__________________
Over we go....

Last edited by xterra; 19th December 2017 at 11:39 PM.
xterra is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 02:23 AM   #269
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I understand not wanting to waste time doing a practice that may not do anything, but if the practice did do something (not necessarily anything paranormal) and you had no other resources to find out what the practice would do, wouldn't that leave doing the practice as the best means to find out what the practice would do? I'm not saying to not take the null position, but wouldn't it not be advisable for you to dismiss the practice when trying it is the only way to find out if it leads to anything (again, not necessarily paranormal).
What if the practise is harmful? Or maybe it's just something the person who's trying to persuade you to try it knows will produce an effect which they can then pretend to explain in a way which enables them to con you. Charlatans and con artists use all sorts of techniques to part marks from their money, often without the mark even realising they've been conned.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 03:19 AM   #270
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by Wonder234 View Post
I understand not wanting to waste time doing a practice that may not do anything, but if the practice did do something (not necessarily anything paranormal) and you had no other resources to find out what the practice would do, wouldn't that leave doing the practice as the best means to find out what the practice would do? I'm not saying to not take the null position, but wouldn't it not be advisable for you to dismiss the practice when trying it is the only way to find out if it leads to anything (again, not necessarily paranormal).
But there IS another way, it is asking the person who claims that the practice gives results to provide evidence of their claim.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 05:27 AM   #271
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
That's fine until you need to make a decision. "My dowsing rod says there's a fortune in gold buried 100 metres below this concrete floor".
(...)
You must either assume the claim is true and dig, or assume the null hypothesis is true and do nothing. Your choice of action tells us which hypothesis you think should be the default.
You almost got me. But wait...

If we forget the gold, and assume that land mines are scattered on a field in Laos, the null hypothesis is not "there are no mines where I plan to step my foot next". The null hypothesis is "we don't know if there are mines where I plan to step my foot next".
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 05:41 AM   #272
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Do you generally assume that anywhere you walk at any time is seeded with landmines? If not then presumably you only apply that standard when there is evidence that landmines might be present.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 06:40 AM   #273
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,532
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Do you generally assume that anywhere you walk at any time is seeded with landmines? If not then presumably you only apply that standard when there is evidence that landmines might be present.
Quite. When I go out into my back garden my default hypothesis is no landmines. If I ever had to cross what I knew was a minefield my default hypothesis would be that there could be a landmine anywhere. There's no doubt in my mind as to which should be the default hypothesis in each case, even if "I don't know" is strictly true in both cases.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 08:01 AM   #274
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Quite. When I go out into my back garden my default hypothesis is no landmines. If I ever had to cross what I knew was a minefield my default hypothesis would be that there could be a landmine anywhere. There's no doubt in my mind as to which should be the default hypothesis in each case, even if "I don't know" is strictly true in both cases.
So,land mines in the backyard are an effective murder technique against skeptics?

Might not want to let that get out there...

Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 08:08 AM   #275
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Quite. When I go out into my back garden my default hypothesis is no landmines. If I ever had to cross what I knew was a minefield my default hypothesis would be that there could be a landmine anywhere. There's no doubt in my mind as to which should be the default hypothesis in each case, even if "I don't know" is strictly true in both cases.
Actually I have this completely unevidenced idea that JJM777's house has been clandestinely surrounded by an impenetrable ring of landmines! And, Oh No, I have the idea that his phone and keyboard have been booby trapped too! I have no evidence but obviously the only sensible option is to assume I'm right!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 08:12 AM   #276
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
So,land mines in the backyard are an effective murder technique against skeptics?

Might not want to let that get out there...

To be fair I don't check my brakes for malicious tampering every day or employ a food taster either. Frankly I'm just asking for it.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 08:42 AM   #277
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,643
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
To be fair I don't check my brakes for malicious tampering every day or employ a food taster either. Frankly I'm just asking for it.
I'm surprised you've lasted this long!

I hope you at least check for booby traps on interior doors.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 09:37 AM   #278
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,440
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I'm surprised you've lasted this long!

I hope you at least check for booby traps on interior doors.
Have you met my wife? Of course I do!
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 10:49 PM   #279
Wonder234
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
Okay, but I am trying to find out what convinced you personally that there is a third eye, or that the chanting works, and/or that there are auras to be seen. Please go back to my questions:


Why did you start this?

Who told you that this worked?

(How) did they demonstrate it?


For the part I highlighted, could you explain whether you looked for other resources and if so what happened?

PLEASE understand that these are real questions. I am not making fun of you or being snide.
Why did you start this? I started this because in a high school world history class they talked about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and this drove me to get a book about philosophy which caused me to be really interested in philosophy and this interest started to leak over into esotericism and spirituality. In my reading of esotericism I found an esoteric school and decided to sign up for lessons. One of the lessons was how to open your third eye.

Who told you that this worked? Well, let's not say that you actually awaken some psychic faculty when you open your third eye but that you start to have interesting experiences when you do. Part of me can't help but think that there might be something to it if I actually did the practice and started having experiences, but for now I'm going to say I don't know what it is. I'm really in it to experience interesting things and why I believe it will lead to me experiencing interesting things is that you can find other people's accounts of what happened when they opened their third eyes and there has been talk about the third eye for centuries. Could they be lying? I don't know how to tell if they are lying about having experiences, not necessarily witnessing something paranormal. But it seems fair to say that a lot of them could be telling the truth, and if this practice really does lead to those experiences, then I'd like to give it a shot.

(How) did they demonstrate it? They did not demonstrate it if by demonstrate you mean prove, however, as I said in the previous answer they have given reason to believe. The school itself did not give testimony but told you what you could expect and said as proof to just do the practice and look for a sensation that should happen if you do it correctly, which, I know, could be the power of suggestion. As for now, I figure I'll just try it out and see what happens as that would probably be the best way to find out if something would happen.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2017, 10:58 PM   #280
Wonder234
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Originally Posted by xterra View Post
For the part I highlighted, could you explain whether you looked for other resources and if so what happened?
I did look at other resources and they said pretty much the same things. Increased intuition, seeing auras, psychometry (the ability to see the history of an object in your mind's eye by holding it), and other things.
Wonder234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:10 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.