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.
Reply
Old 3rd March 2017, 06:20 AM   #41
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: 24,777
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
The point stands, even if the examples are not the same. Hardcore skeptics [... strawman arguments snipped]
...are, in fact, going to form a provisional working conclusion based on the evidence available, to be revised if and when new evidence becomes available. And so, if overwhelming evidence emerges for phenomena currently described as supernatural, it will be necessary to re-evaluate that description, revise our understanding of the laws of nature, and consider the phenomenon in the same way as other natural phenomena. Therefore, the answer to the OP question is "Yes". The scientific view of 'supernatural' events is not that they specifically do not exist; it's that, until there is credible evidence that they do exist, there's no reason to believe that they exist, and once that evidence exists there's no reason to call them supernatural. "Paranormal and real" is therefore effectively an oxymoron; if a phenomenon previously considered 'paranormal' is found to be real, it can be studied and understood so it isn't paranormal, and if it can't be studied and understood, then it's not real.

I know believers in the paranormal hate that answer, but there simply isn't a better one.

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 3rd March 2017, 06:26 AM   #42
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,070
Those darn skeptics, waiting for evidence before they accept something...
I'd rather have them accept all of my claims immediately, and make them prove me wrong instead of doing my own thinking for myself.
Thinking is hard work, but believing is easy.
Porpoise of Life 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 3rd March 2017, 06:31 AM   #43
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I think we need to draw a distinction between "black swan" type phenomena which are not clearly impossible but haven't been convincingly shown to exist and "magical" phenomena which, in the way they are described, appear to contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about.
Loch Ness monster and dinosaurs in Congo are going to be written off by hardcore Skeptics even if they don't "contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about", such "bits of reality" including the "bit of reality" (scientific community's teaching) that large land reptiles and plesiosaurs couldn't survive the ice age.
rakovsky 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 3rd March 2017, 06:39 AM   #44
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Loch Ness monster and dinosaurs in Congo are going to be written off by hardcore Skeptics even if they don't "contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about", such "bits of reality" including the "bit of reality" (scientific community's teaching) that large land reptiles and plesiosaurs couldn't survive the ice age.
The Loch Ness Monster should be written off solely because there is zero evidence for its existence. And I stress, zero. That doesn't prove a negative but a reasonable position to take is that it does not exist, just like it's reasonable to assume my mail this morning was delivered by the postman and not a ten-foot octopedal Martian.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron 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 3rd March 2017, 06:43 AM   #45
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Loch Ness monster and dinosaurs in Congo are going to be written off by hardcore Skeptics even if they don't "contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about", such "bits of reality" including the "bit of reality" (scientific community's teaching) that large land reptiles and plesiosaurs couldn't survive the ice age.
There's a wonderful remedy for that: evidence.
Starting with recorded sightings (not great evidence because it's easy to fake), all the way up to a live or dead dinosaur.

What's wrong with asking someone for evidence if they make an outlandish claim? Whose responsibility should it be, according to you?
Porpoise of Life 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 3rd March 2017, 06:47 AM   #46
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,575
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Loch Ness monster and dinosaurs in Congo are going to be written off by hardcore Skeptics even if they don't "contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about", such "bits of reality" including the "bit of reality" (scientific community's teaching) that large land reptiles and plesiosaurs couldn't survive the ice age.
Nessie isn't so much written off because it couldn't even hypothetically exist, but rather because it would be so hard for everyone to keep missing it, especially when people are actively searching for it.

And it doesn't help when people admit their photo evidence is fake.
Jack by the hedge 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 3rd March 2017, 06:53 AM   #47
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: 24,777
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Loch Ness monster and dinosaurs in Congo are going to be written off by hardcore Skeptics even if they don't "contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about", such "bits of reality" including the "bit of reality" (scientific community's teaching) that large land reptiles and plesiosaurs couldn't survive the ice age.
Would you like to try and rephrase that sentence so it doesn't contradict itself? The present-day existence of dinosaurs and plesiosaurs would contradict some bits of reality we're aware of already, as you rightly state, so the question of writing them off absent those contradictions doesn't arise.

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 3rd March 2017, 07:06 AM   #48
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,492
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
The point stands, even if the examples are not the same. Hardcore skeptics are not going to buy into extreme crypto-animals, plausible or not. They don't believe megalodon is still alive or that a giant Yeti is hiding in Tibet or a warm blooded plesiosaur visits Loch Ness, or that the Jersey Devil is real, or that a dinosaur lives in the Congo, etc, even if you were to agree there is "a means for these things to be possible" or "a foundation in reality".

Hardcore skeptics will say these things don't have a way for them to be plausible, because more people would be photographing them, or there isn't enough fish for megalodon to eat, an ape can't survive in winter, a plesiosaur can't take summer vacations unnoticed in Loch Ness or remain unseen. If we hadn't had physical examples of platupuses, I'm sure hardcore skeptics wouldn't believe in those things either, saying poison tipped feet and bill-mouths are not "plausible" for mammals, and that they have no "foundation in reality"

Whether or not there is actually a plausible way for any of the crypto-animals to exist doesn't mean that the hardcore skeptics are going to believe in cryptozoology or agree that any of the cryptos have a plausible way of existing or have "a foundation in reality".

Go back to 1800 and hardcore skeptics are going to say that sailor tales, like kraken taking down ships are not "a foundation in reality" and there is no plausible mechanism for a komodo dragon to survive the ice age when the large land reptiles died out, and that large reptiles don't toxic saliva to hunt large mammals.
If something seems implausible and there is no objective evidence for it, then the working assumption that it does not exist is the only reasonable one. To assume that it does exist - to believe in it - is not reasonable. The less inherently plausible it seems, and the more opportunities to find objective evidence for it pass without result, the more confident you can reasonably become that your working assumption that it does not exist is the correct one. But your mind always has to be open to the possibility that new evidence will eventually cause you to reconsider.

In my experience it is those who choose to believe despite the absence of plausibility and objective evidence whose minds are closed. They will never reconsider, no matter how increasingly unlikely it becomes that they are correct.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 09:29 AM   #49
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,282
I see this type of argument all the time, especially as it applies to ghosts. It goes something like:

Bob: I saw a ghost!
Ann: There is no evidence for ghosts. Maybe you saw something else.
Bob: No, science just doesn't understand what ghosts are yet. Maybe they are some undiscovered energy. After all, we can't detect dark matter but science still postulates its existence.
Ann: The stupid! It burns!

How can you make an argument that something is made up of some undiscovered energy but at the same time say that you detected this energy with an instrument that can't even detect all the energy we have actually discovered -your eye.
__________________
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 3rd March 2017, 02:39 PM   #50
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
If paranormal phenomena existed on our planet, one could just about understand a failure of more than one person simultaneously to witness a particular one, a ghost say. Yup, statistically improbable, but not impossible.

But if they exist on our planet, albeit rare, restricted to solo sightings, then they surely exist elsewhere in the Universe, and not just on a human scale, but one the size of an asteroid, moon, planet, star, galaxy even.

Hold on a minute. Astronomers have their telescopes trained on many parts of the night sky, able to detect a wide range of electromagnetic radiation - from radio and infrared through to x-rays and gamma rays. All kinds of exotic systems for radiating energy, like quasars etc have been detected and at least partially explained. Surely there would have been some kind of evidence for the paranormal picked up some place, some time through mankind's scanning the vast depths of space on a regular systematic basis.

If none is detected across billions of light years of space - viewed against a near perfect background (pitch black, temperature close to absolute zero temperature) - is it not a fair bet that the paranormal is not a real phenomenon, merely some kind of departure from neurological normality, i.e. one that exists entirely inside our heads? Correction, some heads - and only one at a time, sadly with no camera or other recording system to hand at the time...
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman 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 3rd March 2017, 06:54 PM   #51
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
The point stands, even if the examples are not the same. Hardcore skeptics are not going to buy into extreme crypto-animals, plausible or not. They don't believe megalodon is still alive or that a giant Yeti is hiding in Tibet or a warm blooded plesiosaur visits Loch Ness, or that the Jersey Devil is real, or that a dinosaur lives in the Congo, etc, even if you were to agree there is "a means for these things to be possible" or "a foundation in reality".

.
Lets take those one at a time.

Megalodon went extinct. The simple fact is that nobody has ever caught one, and none have ever washed up on a beach somewhere. Giant Squids have done this, and we knew they existed based on physical evidence recovered from Sperm Whales. It wasn't until the 21st Century that one was filmed in the wild. The deep oceans still have many secrets, but Megalodon ain't one of them.

The Loch Ness Monster, even if it was ever real, suffered from misinformation based upon known hoaxes which suggested it was a dinosaur. Right off the bat there was nothing realistic to grasp. So instead of just searching for a large creature folks have been looking for a dinosaur, and not finding one in almost 100 years of looking for the thing. Meanwhile, we have established that 6 Gill Sharks have a habit of swimming into freshwater lakes, and likely account for the sonar returns in Loch Ness over the years.

The upside of all the Loch Ness silliness is that through the decades of research the UK has comprehensive data to track the effects of climate change on everything from micro organisms up to the ells in the lake.

The Jersey Devil has never been anything but folklore.

And the Congo just isn't as mysterious as it was 40 years ago.

Skeptics don't automatically default into disbelief, they wait for substantiation from a few more credible sources before they make their minds up.

Do some skeptics jump the gun with a knee-jerk reaction? Yes.

The Chupacabra is an example of a mythical beast which actually signaled climate change, at least in the south-west US where we eventually discovered that animal killings attributed to the crypto beast were actually cause by Jaguars which had begun to roam north.

We could have learned about the presence of these cats a decade earlier, but authorities blew off the animal deaths as caused by known local predators even though the M.O., and the tracks didn't match any of them. So what you had were believers screaming "Chupacabra!", skeptics screaming "B.S.", and in the middle was the truth - Jaguars.

If you hear hoof-beats think horses, not zebras...unless you live in Africa, then just get the heck out of the way because a herd of something is going to run over you.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 3rd March 2017, 07:33 PM   #52
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,039
What's supernatural about previously-undiscovered species of animal, anyway?
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 3rd March 2017, 10:59 PM   #53
Scorpion
Muse
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 762
The only thing in this universe that is a link to higher dimensions is consciousness itself.

Descartes coined it by saying the mind is an unextended thinking thing, but the body is an extended unthinking thing. But stuffed up know all's Like Daniel Dennet have made simplistic statements like.' Mind is brain', as if that makes the phenomena of consciousness mundane.

I maintain we are the ghost in the machine, therefore it is possible to experience higher supernatural events in our minds.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion 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 3rd March 2017, 11:12 PM   #54
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,039
Consciousness is mundane. It's what brains do. That's all.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 4th March 2017, 12:28 AM   #55
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
The easiest way to fake a ghost would be to dust someone, clothed or unclothed, from head to foot in white flour.

Might that have been how they faked that ghostly Man on the Shroud too, followed by imprinting of a fuzzy negative image onto linen etc etc?

Oops. Wrong thread...
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman 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 4th March 2017, 07:51 AM   #56
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Smile

Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
The only thing in this universe that is a link to higher dimensions is consciousness itself.

Descartes coined it by saying the mind is an unextended thinking thing, but the body is an extended unthinking thing. But stuffed up know all's Like Daniel Dennet have made simplistic statements like.' Mind is brain', as if that makes the phenomena of consciousness mundane.

I maintain we are the ghost in the machine, therefore it is possible to experience higher supernatural events in our minds.
Interesting way of looking at it!
rakovsky 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 4th March 2017, 08:04 AM   #57
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Consciousness is mundane. It's what brains do. That's all.
From one extreme to the other. That's why discussions of this nature are rarely useful.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron 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 4th March 2017, 08:14 AM   #58
Scorpion
Muse
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Consciousness is mundane. It's what brains do. That's all.
Consciousness is capable of thinking outside the box. Which is one reason we have so many religions. We seek to explain life by looking for higher answers than the mere fact of physical existence.

If mind is brain how come we are not constrained by instinct and just behave like animals. Instead of what we do which is build cathedrals , paint pictures, write great symphonies, and write poetry.

Even animals are conscious in my view, and the bird hanging on my avatars face knew I loved her. She was only a little bird but she learned to respond to me and used to come to me for a cuddle. This was not instinct it was learned behaviour.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion 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 4th March 2017, 08:23 AM   #59
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Cool

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What's supernatural about previously-undiscovered species of animal, anyway?
Some of the species are given properties that violate the standard teachings about nature. Komodo dragons violate the teaching that an ancient meteor or the ice age made it impossible for large land reptiles to survive. Plesiosaur cryptos violate a similar idea by living in winter-frozen Scotland or Lake Champlain.

Second, even if it wasn't an issue of supernaturality, it's still an analogy. Skeptics will take a default position that the cryptoids are fake, and then when they finally catch the cryptoid, they say it's real, but it's not a cryptoid.

Here is what the Skeptic's Dictionary says:
Quote:
Cryptozoology is, literally, the study of hidden animals. It is the study of such creatures as the Australian bunyip, Bigfoot, the chupacabra, and the Loch Ness monster. It is not a recognized branch of the science of zoology.
http://skepdic.com/crypto.html
Skeptics aren't caught saying "Wake up people, these cryptos are real", or "Cryptozoology is real". They are only caught saying that some animal (kraken/giant squid, komodo dragons, flying dragon lizards, African large gorillas) that used to be called by them cryptos turned out to be real, but they aren't called "cryptos" anymore.

Same thing with the paranormal. Hardcore Skeptics aren't caught saying the "Paranormal is real".
At most, they are caught saying that certain things "are real, not paranormal", in cases when those things were once considered "paranormal" or "magic" nonsense by them (eg. ball lightning, placebo effect, medieval herbal brew treatments, alchemical formulas, radio waves, hypnosis, human or animal electromagnetism, or fortean weather events.), as one skeptic said earlier in this thread, "skeptics admit their mistakes". But denying the paranormal per se hasn't been one of those admissions of mistakes.

Maybe this often comes from a very materialistic or hardcore naturalistic outlook that tends to deny properties of actions of non-materialistic/non-naturalistic phenomena like God or the soul.

Last edited by rakovsky; 4th March 2017 at 08:31 AM.
rakovsky 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 4th March 2017, 08:54 AM   #60
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Cool

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Lets take those one at a time.
The examples still prove my point that skeptics don't buy into cryptos even if there there was "a means for these things to be possible" or "a foundation in reality".

1. You said that mere circumstantial evidence from sperm whales (scratches?) is enough to believe that kraken/giant squid existed and gives it "a foundation in reality".

2. You write: "we knew they existed based on physical evidence recovered from Sperm Whales." But in fact, in the past, skeptics didn't believe in kraken/giant squid and considered them sailor myths.

3. You missed bigfoot/yeti. We have large ape tracks in the woods in places outside Africa. That's a "foundation in reality".

My point stands that skeptics don't believe in cryptos / "hidden animals", even in cases when there is "a means for these things to be possible" or "a foundation in reality".

It turns out that there were a means for giant squid/kraken and yetis to exist and circumstantial evidence and anecdotes gave "a foundation", but strong self-declared capital S "Skeptics" have denied the cryptos as nonsense until it's become proven.

Quote:
Top 10 Cryptids That Turned Out to be Real
animals falsely thought to be extinct... included... coelacanth, Chacoan Peccary, ivory-billed woodpecker...

10. The Devil Bird, or Ulama, is a frightening horned bird of Sri Lankan folklore. This elusive creature is rarely seen, but is often heard in the form of its infamous, blood-curdling screams. Its cries are said to resemble a wailing woman and are perceived by locals as an omen of death. For centuries, the nocturnal cries of the Devil Bird were the only evidence of its existence; Western science wrote if off as mere superstition.

7. Kangaroo
Early explorers to Australia described bizarre creatures never before seen by Europeans. They wrote of creatures with heads like deer that stood upright like men and hopped like frogs. The creatures sometimes sported two heads – one on their shoulders, and one on the stomach. Such accounts were understandably disregarded and ridiculed by fellow colleagues.

6. Platypus
Many prominent British scientists deemed it a hoax when presented with a sketch and pelt, in 1798. Even when offered a corpse, scholars suspected that it was an elaborate, sewn-together fraud.

http://listverse.com/2010/08/13/top-...ut-to-be-real/
rakovsky 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 4th March 2017, 09:34 AM   #61
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Some of the species are given properties that violate the standard teachings about nature. Komodo dragons violate the teaching that an ancient meteor or the ice age made it impossible for large land reptiles to survive. Plesiosaur cryptos violate a similar idea by living in winter-frozen Scotland or Lake Champlain.
That is flat out wrong.


Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Second, even if it wasn't an issue of supernaturality, it's still an analogy. Skeptics will take a default position that the cryptoids are fake, and then when they finally catch the cryptoid, they say it's real, but it's not a cryptoid.
Vaguely true. Skeptics change their minds when actual evidence is presented.

Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Here is what the Skeptic's Dictionary says:
Who cares?

Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Skeptics aren't caught saying "Wake up people, these cryptos are real", or "Cryptozoology is real". They are only caught saying that some animal (kraken/giant squid, komodo dragons, flying dragon lizards, African large gorillas) that used to be called by them cryptos turned out to be real, but they aren't called "cryptos" anymore.

Same thing with the paranormal. Hardcore Skeptics aren't caught saying the "Paranormal is real".
At most, they are caught saying that certain things "are real, not paranormal", in cases when those things were once considered "paranormal" or "magic" nonsense by them (eg. ball lightning, placebo effect, medieval herbal brew treatments, alchemical formulas, radio waves, hypnosis, human or animal electromagnetism, or fortean weather events.), as one skeptic said earlier in this thread, "skeptics admit their mistakes". But denying the paranormal per se hasn't been one of those admissions of mistakes.

Maybe this often comes from a very materialistic or hardcore naturalistic outlook that tends to deny properties of actions of non-materialistic/non-naturalistic phenomena like God or the soul.
What a load of tired old crap.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 4th March 2017, 10:34 AM   #62
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Skeptics aren't caught saying "Wake up people, these cryptos are real", or "Cryptozoology is real".
…yawnsnip…
Hardcore Skeptics aren't caught saying the "Paranormal is real".
… more blathersnip …
as one skeptic said earlier in this thread, "skeptics admit their mistakes". But denying the paranormal per se hasn't been one of those admissions of mistakes.
What do you want? A world of acceptics?

Can no one resist premature conclusions? Can no one challenge assumptions? Must every whim of art be granted taxonomy among the sciences?

Such a society would include everything by erasing distinctions; thus it would exclude everything.

Why, soon it will be found that psychic vibrations can replace the Internet and your pallid botherings will wink out.

Please respond in prayer.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 4th March 2017, 11:44 AM   #63
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,778
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Some of the species are given properties that violate the standard teachings about nature. Komodo dragons violate the teaching that an ancient meteor or the ice age made it impossible for large land reptiles to survive. Plesiosaur cryptos violate a similar idea by living in winter-frozen Scotland or Lake Champlain.

Second, even if it wasn't an issue of supernaturality, it's still an analogy. Skeptics will take a default position that the cryptoids are fake, and then when they finally catch the cryptoid, they say it's real, but it's not a cryptoid.

Here is what the Skeptic's Dictionary says:


Skeptics aren't caught saying "Wake up people, these cryptos are real", or "Cryptozoology is real". They are only caught saying that some animal (kraken/giant squid, komodo dragons, flying dragon lizards, African large gorillas) that used to be called by them cryptos turned out to be real, but they aren't called "cryptos" anymore.
Which all boils down to skeptics not believing in something until there is evidence for it, and then, if that evidence is found, accepting the thing as real.
What exactly is the problem here?

Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Same thing with the paranormal. Hardcore Skeptics aren't caught saying the "Paranormal is real".[/u] At most, they are caught saying that certain things "are real, not paranormal", in cases when those things were once considered "paranormal" or "magic" nonsense by them (eg. ball lightning, placebo effect, medieval herbal brew treatments, alchemical formulas, radio waves, hypnosis, human or animal electromagnetism, or fortean weather events.), as one skeptic said earlier in this thread, "skeptics admit their mistakes". But denying the paranormal per se hasn't been one of those admissions of mistakes.
Not the same thing at all. Did you watch the video I linked to? It might help clarify things for you.
Moreover, you have carefully cherry-picked a list of non-paranormal phenomena that were once believed to be paranormal as examples. Just because superstitious and uninformed people believed there was a supernatural cause of what they were observing doesn't mean at all that ghosts (remember your ghost example? You have carefully steered the argument away from that one), are real.
If anyone could propose- and I invite you to try- a plausible mechanism, which is consistent with what we know and can prove by observation and experiment, that allows for the existence of ghosts, then I would give it careful consideration. Unfortunately for this stance, as science has now shown, such a mechanism is deeply implausible, given that it would flatly contradict a lot of what we know about the world so far. For ghosts to be real, enormous amounts of verifiable science would have to be completely wrong. This seems unlikely to me. Revisions, yes, of course, but so much of it? Very doubtful.
You will notice that I am only speaking about myself here. I think it is worth pointing out that skepticism is not a religion. To treat all skeptics as if they all thought the same, as followers of a religion do, is misplaced. A reading of any thread on this forum would demonstrate that. I cannot speak for others, nor they for me. All I can say is that, personally speaking, I do not reject anything that is within the scope of what is physically/ scientifically possible. I just don't accept every story I come across unless it is supported with evidence.

Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Maybe this often comes from a very materialistic or hardcore naturalistic outlook that tends to deny properties of actions of non-materialistic/non-naturalistic phenomena like God or the soul.

You persist with these extreme adjectives and qualifiers, as if skeptics were a cult. They are not. We are not. I am not.
If you want to bring "God" into the conversation, you need to first clarify which god you mean, and then provide some evidence of its existence, and precisely how it affects our world (especially as we know, as would you if you had watched the video, that it does not).
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 4th March 2017, 12:21 PM   #64
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: 24,777
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
If mind is brain how come we are not constrained by instinct and just behave like animals.
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Even animals are conscious in my view, and the bird hanging on my avatars face knew I loved her. She was only a little bird but she learned to respond to me and used to come to me for a cuddle. This was not instinct it was learned behaviour.
Am I the only one to have noticed the jarring contradiction between these two statements? It seems to me that the only way to resolve that contradiction is to assume that consciousness is a commonly observed emergent property of a sufficiently complex organism, or at the very least to assume that there's nothing unique or special about its existence in humans.

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 4th March 2017, 12:25 PM   #65
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,575
I wonder if the OP is arguing from a position that all paranormal phenomena are actually real and we just haven't found the proof yet.

If not, then I struggle to see what s/he's so agitated about. If I believe in ten fantastical creatures and you don't then if one turns out to be real and nine are fantasy, who's the bigger fool?
Jack by the hedge 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 4th March 2017, 12:26 PM   #66
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Am I the only one to have noticed the jarring contradiction …
To be honest, there are so many jars of contradiction from Scorpion, we need more shelves.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn 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 4th March 2017, 12:57 PM   #67
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
1. You said that mere circumstantial evidence from sperm whales (scratches?) is enough to believe that kraken/giant squid existed and gives it "a foundation in reality".

2. You write: "we knew they existed based on physical evidence recovered from Sperm Whales." But in fact, in the past, skeptics didn't believe in kraken/giant squid and considered them sailor myths.
It was more than scratches and suction cup marks in the whale skin, they found remains in the stomach...AND they'd wash ashore once in a while.

What skeptics didn't believe was the tales of Giant Squid dragging sailing ships under. That's asking a lot even from the largest squid. A squid's power drops the farther out of the water it gets. This is why the Humbolt Squids don't tear apart fishing nets, or fight their way off of small fishing boats when captured.

Plus, squid are not surface hunters, although in the South Pacific the natives don't fish in canoes on moonless nights out of fear of Giant Squid.

The other problem skeptics had was the source. Sailors are not always the most reliable sources for scientific data, which is unfortunate because they observe a lot of useful stuff...and then BS about it. (I live on the coast).

Quote:
3. You missed bigfoot/yeti. We have large ape tracks in the woods in places outside Africa. That's a "foundation in reality".

My point stands that skeptics don't believe in cryptos / "hidden animals", even in cases when there is "a means for these things to be possible" or "a foundation in reality".
I didn't miss it, I ignored it.

But...

Sasquatch, if he exists, is not an ape. The track samples are not from an ape. This is where believers fail, you just tried to present Sasquatch using incorrect biology. Worse, why does anyone think the Yeti and Sasquatch are the same type of creature?

A Koala Bear is not a bear. Pandas ARE bears, but that wasn't always thought to be the case until DNA.

So far the DNA for Sasquatch AND Yeti point to bears. So the logical question should be, are they a branch of the bear family? Plus the obvious question: Are people misidentifying bears as Sasquatch?

Believers have run wild with these stories for decades instead of looking at the common data, and the result is meta-science not science. The first victim of meta-science is logic.

I used to hike a lot in an area thick with Mountain Lions. I never saw one, but I saw their tracks, but it took almost three years to become proficient in identifying lion tracks over coyote, lynx, and dog tracks. I'm also really good at scat ID, crappy skill, but handy.

So the first time I came across a wild turkey track there was 20 seconds of "OMG a dinosaur!" until I calmed down and followed it to the biggest, ugliest bird I have ever seen. I never knew we had turkeys in this part of California, and had I not seen the bird I would have walked out of the woods with tales of dinosaur tracks to tell the world.

More to the point, tracks are perishable, and fresh tracks are obvious, yet nobody ever follows bigfoot tracks to their source. They chicken out. Sure, they'll talk about the rough countryside, not having enough water, not dressed for a long hike, blah,blah, blah, but the fact is they don't want to see what made the tracks...and ruin the run...
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 4th March 2017 at 12:58 PM.
Axxman300 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 4th March 2017, 01:10 PM   #68
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
The easiest way to fake a ghost would be to dust someone, clothed or unclothed, from head to foot in white flour.
Actually it's easier than that.

A ghost research team in Oklahoma performed an experiment to see if they could fabricate a haunting and were successful. Their target was fairly new high school, and what they did was identify a couple of the "cool kids", and give them a story about a janitor who hung himself in a second floor broom closet (chances are you went to a school that had this story attached, or knew of one close by). They were told the janitor always wore a red bandanna around his neck, and that his ghost was seen on a specific stairway, and the broom closet door would rattle for no reason.

It took less than six months until the janitor's ghost was regularly seen on the stairs in the early morning, or at night. Not just students, but the staff, and faculty THOUGHT they saw stuff.

The problem is that even after the hoax was revealed nobody believes the hoax because people they know have "seen" the ghost.

This story says a lot, and it is a repeatable experiment that should be conducted elsewhere by psychologists.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 4th March 2017, 01:47 PM   #69
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
The easiest way to fake a ghost would be to dust someone, clothed or unclothed, from head to foot in white flour.
Nope.


Those are my ghostly kids.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 4th March 2017, 05:19 PM   #70
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,039
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Consciousness is capable of thinking outside the box. Which is one reason we have so many religions. We seek to explain life by looking for higher answers than the mere fact of physical existence.
In what way is that "outside the box"?

Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
If mind is brain how come we are not constrained by instinct and just behave like animals. Instead of what we do which is build cathedrals , paint pictures, write great symphonies, and write poetry.
In what way is that distinct from instinct?

Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
Even animals are conscious in my view, and the bird hanging on my avatars face knew I loved her. She was only a little bird but she learned to respond to me and used to come to me for a cuddle. This was not instinct it was learned behaviour.
And in what way is that distinct from instinct? Isn't the bird an animal and thereby constrained by instinct?

Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Here is what the Skeptic's Dictionary says:
Oddly enough, I already know what a cryptid is.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 4th March 2017, 07:46 PM   #71
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Cool

Axxman,
My point is that Skeptics' responses on these kinds of things go into two categories:
Before the phenomena are proven, they are paranormal or cryptozoological nonsense that must be denied.
After the phenomena are proven, they are real, but no longer called cryptozoology or paranormal.

This is because as I quoted above, the Skeptics look down on those underlined categories as nonsense.

Examples:

Unproven Stage:


[quote=Axxman300;11743632]
What skeptics didn't believe was the tales of Giant Squid dragging sailing ships under. That's asking a lot even from the largest squid. A squid's power drops the farther out of the water it gets. This is why the Humbolt Squids don't tear apart fishing nets, or fight their way off of small fishing boats when captured.
Plus, squid are not surface hunters, although in the South Pacific the natives don't fish in canoes on moonless nights out of fear of Giant Squid. The other problem skeptics had was the source. Sailors are not always the most reliable sources for scientific data, which is unfortunate because they observe a lot of useful stuff...and then BS about it. (I live on the coast).

Quote:
I didn't miss it, I ignored it. Sasquatch, if he exists, is not an ape. The track samples are not from an ape. This is where believers fail, you just tried to present Sasquatch using incorrect biology. ...

More to the point, tracks are perishable, and fresh tracks are obvious, yet nobody ever follows bigfoot tracks to their source. They chicken out. Sure, they'll talk about the rough countryside, not having enough water, not dressed for a long hike, blah,blah, blah, but the fact is they don't want to see what made the tracks...and ruin the run...
So before the proof happens, cryptozoological stories of kraken/giant squid taking down ships are tales and typical sailors' BS, and yeti or sasquatch tracks are not primates' tracks, and are not even counted as even any circumstantial evidence at all or a "foundation for reality".

Maybe sasquatch really is just made up. I am just working on showing what I see as the weakness in the hardcore Skeptic paradigm where anything cryptozoological is nonsense.... until it's proven and then it's real and not cryptozoological. It's impossible for them to conceive as realistic that cryptozoology and the paranormal are in fact sometimes real.


Proven Stage:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
It was more than scratches and suction cup marks in the whale skin, they found remains in the stomach...AND they'd wash ashore once in a while.
Was that information available and identified by the skeptics as such?
That information became available and was part of different evidence in an ongoing debate. For example, the Skeptic could have said that the remains in the stomach are of two squid, since stomach remains are not clear due to digestion. Remember, platypuses were considered fake even when the corpses were provided, because the skeptics thought someone just sewed the parts together.

But then when finally we got the live or freshly dead squid, then it becomes obvious and the skeptics agree that it's a real animal, and then they start talking about how all that evidence they had been dismissing like the sailros' tales was actually real. The hardcore Skeptics don't go back and decide "cryptoids are sometimes real".

"Giant Squid ... Attacks The Side Of Ship"
[See video]
http://www.tmz.com/2015/07/23/gigant...ck-boat-video/
http://pickle.nine.com.au/2015/07/24...iant-squid-wtf

Quote:
There are lots of reports from days of old, but it is not likely any are true. Still, there are some strange documented stories out there. In 2003 the crew of a racing yacht reported a giant squid attacked their boat and wouldn’t let go. In 1874 a schooner called the Pearl was allegedly attacked and sunk by a giant squid. A Norwegian Naval vessel was allegedly attacked three times by a giant squid in 1930.

Are these stories true? If so, might some of the old fisherman tales be true as well?
https://owlcation.com/stem/Colossal-...en-Sea-Monster
The underlined part is skeptical and contradicts the rest of the paragraph where it lists different reports it takes seriously and then suggests maybe some stories are true.
Quote:
Veteran yachtsman Olivier De Kersauson, who sailed from Brittany on Saturday, said that several hours into his voyage he found that a giant squid had clamped on to the hull of his boat.
"I saw a tentacle through a porthole," Olivier de Kersauson said from his boat. "It was thicker than my leg and it was really pulling the boat hard."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2661691.stm

Quote:
The other one I watched on animal planet and it really surprised me. A middle size yacht / catamaran of maybe 15 meter length with maybe 5 people staff gets stuck during its cruise in some waters. While thay first think they got stranded on ground they notice there is no shallow water. One staff member finally detects a huge octopus arm holding the ship near the rudder, and informs the others. They put the engines to maximum energy/speed and yet the yacht does not move. Finally they try and attack the arm and the octopus lets got. When back in the harbour they find the whole boat is cracked, and there is imprints of large tentacles on the boat. The round circles looked quite large and i was impressed.
https://www.quora.com/Have-there-bee...ttacked-a-ship

After the stories about the "cryptozoological" properties of the cryptos are proven with enough documentation, like videos, then the skeptics will say that the properties, like squid attacking boats with strength, sometimes reflect real phenomena. But they don't call the stories and properties cryptozoological anymore.

The takeaway lesson I have is that sometimes cryptozoology, cryptoids, and their strange crypto properties are real, but hardcore skeptics don't admit that. When the cryptos are finally proven enough for the hardcore skeptics, they just stop calling the phenomena cryptozoology.

Same thing with the paranormal. Once it gets proven as real and understood, what was derided as paranormal and nonsense just seems to get re-classified as "not paranormal" by the hardcore skeptics, without a realization that paranormal phenomena that violate "Science" (as the official scientific community understands Science) can sometimes be real.
rakovsky 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 4th March 2017, 08:12 PM   #72
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
<snip nonsense that you don't even accept>
It has been claimed right here on this very site that Jinn intervene in our daily lives. Do you accept this? Yes or no?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 4th March 2017, 08:22 PM   #73
rakovsky
Critical Thinker
 
rakovsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Cool

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It has been claimed right here on this very site that Jinn intervene in our daily lives. Do you accept this? Yes or no?
I am skeptical, but don't rule it out 100%. I think sometimes paranormal things are real.
rakovsky 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 4th March 2017, 08:46 PM   #74
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,412
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
I am skeptical, but don't rule it out 100%. I think sometimes paranormal things are real.
Did you know that the OED removed the word "gullible" from their dictionary? True. You can look it up for yourself.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 4th March 2017, 08:51 PM   #75
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Did you know that the OED removed the word "gullible" from their dictionary? True. You can look it up for yourself.
I don't have to look it up. I believe you.
marplots 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 4th March 2017, 11:36 PM   #76
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,984
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
The takeaway lesson I have is that sometimes cryptozoology, cryptoids, and their strange crypto properties are real, but hardcore skeptics don't admit that. When the cryptos are finally proven enough for the hardcore skeptics, they just stop calling the phenomena cryptozoology.

Same thing with the paranormal. Once it gets proven as real and understood, what was derided as paranormal and nonsense just seems to get re-classified as "not paranormal" by the hardcore skeptics, without a realization that paranormal phenomena that violate "Science" (as the official scientific community understands Science) can sometimes be real.
The problem believers always have is hysterical embrace of the unsubstantiated fantastic. They run wild with anecdotal stories before anything can be confirmed, and these stories become dogma. Achiteuthis is a powerful creature IN THE WATER, and can mess with a ship's hull. Sinking a smaller craft would be difficult, but could be possible. Locally there is a story about squid boat (of all things) that was pulled backward for a few miles, and was forced to cut lose their net when whatever was in the net started to pull the boat under. They thought it was a US Navy attack submarine and tried to sue the Navy for the loss of their net. The Navy said they didn't have a sub in Monterey Bay that night, and the case was tossed out of court.

The thing is that the squid was under water where it has all the leverage. Hell, there might have even been two of them. Problem is that nobody know what was pulling the boat under. No whales washed up wrapped in a net in the weeks that followed, so it remains a mystery. And a mystery is where it should stop, but it won't. Local UFO people suggest the mystery thing was an alien ship, and the sea monster crowd pulls the "mysteries of the deep" card out.

Even a Humbot Squid is a threat to divers, but you know what it becomes out of water?

Calamari.

There's an Architeuthis on display at the marine lab about a mile from my house. It's about 18 feet long, and impressive. The thing was caught in the bay, and brought right to the lab to be dissected. We understand the mechanics of these creatures, and we have even spotted another large species of squid visiting our MARS observatory at the -2,923 feet level in Monterey Bay : http://www.mbari.org/at-sea/cabled-observatory/

They got it on video, but since the creature has only been seen once it remains a mystery squid, because that's how science works: we saw something that we can't identify - here's the data, and when we get more data we'll let you know.

You shouldn't confuse skeptics with scientists, though scientists are skeptics not all skeptics have a scientific background, and fewer believers have any science under their belts. To my knowledge, the giant squid was always believed to exist. The key point here is that technology caught up with it, and we've caught it on HD video a couple of times now. But that's because scientists went out to hunt a squid, studied squid behavior, and used that knowledge to lure them in close to the camera. Bigfoot, if he's a primate, doesn't seem to play by primate rules which allow biologists to track Mountain Gorillas down, or the smaller Congo Gorilla. Both apes live in terrain more rugged than the Pacific Northwest.

As far as other paranormal phenomenon goes, as an old ghost hunter myself, I ain't holding my breath for that big scientific breakthrough.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 5th March 2017, 12:20 AM   #77
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope.
http://i.imgur.com/XoWNj1E.jpg

Those are my ghostly kids.
Ah, but there's a defect in your modelling of ghosts. You see, I omitted to mention a detail in my flour-model. In the situation where the ghost is decently clothed, it's possible to tuck a vertically-pointing permanently-switched on battery-powered torch down the shirt that illuminates the face - needed you understand for a really convincing ghost effect. (It also helps to look wide-eyed and unblinking as well, but that's by the way).

You rely on reflection, semi-transparency etc to create your ghost effect. But there's that vital element missing - namely self-luminosity.

Sorry. I claim the superior model (as I do also likewise with that enigmatic 'ghostly' Shroud - despite it relying on boring old plain white flour and cake-baking technology).
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman 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 5th March 2017, 12:46 AM   #78
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,778
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
The takeaway lesson I have is that sometimes cryptozoology, cryptoids, and their strange crypto properties are real, but hardcore skeptics don't admit that. When the cryptos are finally proven enough for the hardcore skeptics, they just stop calling the phenomena cryptozoology.

Same thing with the paranormal. Once it gets proven as real and understood, what was derided as paranormal and nonsense just seems to get re-classified as "not paranormal" by the hardcore skeptics, without a realization that paranormal phenomena that violate "Science" (as the official scientific community understands Science) can sometimes be real.
Oh hogwash.

All you've done is cherry-pick a handful of exceptions. For every Mountain Gorilla there's a million pieces of hokum that have stayed and forever will stay hokum.

If one is a Woo Slinger and believes all manner of unsupported claptrap with no rhyme or reason you did get to take credit when you are coincidentally right about a handful of things to a degree no higher then random chance would suggest.

If the only skill one is cultivating is building a larger and larger repository of methods to argue why you can't be proven wrong, as is the Woo Slinger trademark, you sort of hit a brick wall of any credit for being right you can ever take.

Here look at it his way.

As of this posting (05MAR17) we have calculated the irrational number Pi to at least a couple of quadrillion digits.

So I'm gonna make a statement. The next value of Pi we're gonna calculate is... let's say.... 8.

I have zero way of knowing this. I'm not applying any logical or scientific or mathematical rigor to that statement. I'm just randomly guessing.

It could be 8. Very well good be. I got a one in ten chance of being right. You certainly couldn't prove that that digit of Pi isn't 8.

But if in however many years they do calculate that digit of Pi and it turns out to be 8... what did I do intellectually that I can take credit for?

If that digit of Pi does turn out to be 8 all it does is valid my random guess, not give me carte blanche for a sad "Neiner neiner neiner neiner science was wrong" song and dance.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong

Last edited by JoeBentley; 5th March 2017 at 12:50 AM.
JoeBentley 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 5th March 2017, 01:37 AM   #79
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,492
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Axxman,
My point is that Skeptics' responses on these kinds of things go into two categories:
Before the phenomena are proven, they are paranormal or cryptozoological nonsense that must be denied.
After the phenomena are proven, they are real, but no longer called cryptozoology or paranormal.
A sceptic's response to an unevidenced and implausible claim is to assume it is false until and unless objective evidence is forthcoming to support it. When others insist on believing it despite the lack of evidence and plausibility, a sceptic will often point out how unreasonable that position is.

On the rare occasions when objective evidence is eventually forthcoming, a sceptic's response is to accept the claim and incorporate this new knowledge into their understanding of the world.

You appear to think there is something wrong with this approach to such claims. Please explain what, and why.

What do you think would be a better approach, and why?
__________________
"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 5th March 2017, 03:04 AM   #80
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,039
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Did you know that the OED removed the word "gullible" from their dictionary? True. You can look it up for yourself.
I totally got a co-worker with that one just the other day.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot 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 02:57 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.