| Welcome to Keyboard Friends. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| An accurate description on scepticism | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 24 2012, 11:02 PM (138 Views) | |
| Ghosthunter | Jun 24 2012, 11:02 PM Post #1 |
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Dear Ghostvillagers, Let’s talk about skeptics. Skeptics and skepticism are a vital part of the paranormal discussion. No, this isn’t some bash-fest. That doesn’t help any cause. I’m talking about being skeptical. We should all be skeptical when it comes to extraordinary claims, but we must differentiate skepticism from our own belief system. Let’s check out the Dictionary.com definition of “Skeptic”: Skep-tic (noun) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic?s=t 1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. 2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others. 3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion... 4. (initial capital letter) Philosophy a. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible. b. any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind. Let’s work backward, starting with number 4. The philosophical movement whereby a Skeptic (capital “S”) believes knowledge of things is impossible. That doesn’t sound like many of the Skeptics we’ve seen and heard on radio and television programs, does it? Many of these folks are devout atheists who believe there are facts and fiction. Black and white. Number 3. Related only if you consider the paranormal a belief system. Of course you can make many arguments that the paranormal is a belief system -- and you can make the same argument for skepticism. Then we get into the battle of beliefs. My religion is right and yours is wrong. That’s difficult because then there is no discussion. Neither side even wants to see the other’s point of view. We’re going to skip number 2 because it doesn’t relate as much to this topic. But number 1… we save the best for last. “Question the validity or authenticity of something said to be a fact.” That’s me, man. For sure. You tell me you saw a ghost, and I will have questions. I will want to know more. Some people have told me of their experiences and my gut (and experience) made me think they were either lying or delusional. However many others have told me of their brush with the paranormal, and I believed that they believed what they saw, heard, or felt. Having had my own unexplained experiences, I know these events are in the realm of possibility. I’ve had the opportunity to debate people who title themselves “Skeptic” in radio and print interviews, and in person at conferences and events. The single most frustrating part of this debate usually comes down to this one factor: I tell of a personal experience where myself and three others witnessed a “ghost” walk out of a room, look at us, then disappear back into the same room. All four of us knew we were alone in this wing of the building, all four of us saw it, and all four of use raced the 15 feet to the room where we saw this thing to verify someone (living) hadn’t snuck in. But alas, no one was there. I use the term “ghost” because we have no other explanation. I’ve had “Skeptics” tell me we experienced a mass hallucination. That we were mistaken in low light. You name it. What’s infuriating is that this person who calls himself science-minded is judging not only the ability of my senses, but my personal experience. This Skeptic wasn’t there at the time. So the Skeptic is speaking from the point of view of a belief system and I’m speaking from the point of view of a personal observation. And what is science but observable results? Who really is the Skeptic here? Exploring the paranormal isn’t some kind of battle. We shouldn’t be expected to stand firmly in one believer/skeptic camp or the other. There’s too much about the world and universe around us that we don’t understand to take an immovable position. But the exploration itself is the joy. Excellent points are made on both sides of this debate, so this month we’re going to focus on the skeptics. Supernaturally yours, Jeff Belanger Mayor of Ghostvillage.com |
 |
 
|
| OMGBanana | Jun 24 2012, 11:14 PM Post #2 |
Banana Queen!
|
for some people, i think sceptic has shifted meaning from someone who questions things to someone who does not believe. i think this is because people have a with us or against us mentality about the paranormal, and take any questioning or doubt as an attack on their beliefs. ive had that happen to me, when someone tells me a ghost story or shows me a website about ghosts and i ask something like: "how are you sure that this website is telling the truth, but this website i found saying it was faked isnt?" "are you absolutely certain there was nobody in the room at the time?" "i think the medium is faking it, that looks like cold reading to me" and some people respond like i have just told them ghosts arent real and lump me in with the complete non believers, or accuse me of being closed minded cause i dared take the sceptic side over something or at least question their perfect piece of evidence. |
|
|
|
| Ghosthunter | Jun 25 2012, 12:06 AM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
|
These are valid points and frequently rear up.Dogmatism at its best on the naysayers part. I’ve had the opportunity to debate people who title themselves “Skeptic” in radio and print interviews, and in person at conferences and events. The single most frustrating part of this debate usually comes down to this one factor: I tell of a personal experience where myself and three others witnessed a “ghost” walk out of a room, look at us, then disappear back into the same room. All four of us knew we were alone in this wing of the building, all four of us saw it, and all four of use raced the 15 feet to the room where we saw this thing to verify someone (living) hadn’t snuck in. But alas, no one was there. I use the term “ghost” because we have no other explanation. I’ve had “Skeptics” tell me we experienced a mass hallucination. That we were mistaken in low light. You name it. What’s infuriating is that this person who calls himself science-minded is judging not only the ability of my senses, but my personal experience. This Skeptic wasn’t there at the time. So the Skeptic is speaking from the point of view of a belief system and I’m speaking from the point of view of a personal observation. And what is science but observable results? Who really is the Skeptic here? |
|
|
|
| Les | Jun 25 2012, 10:08 AM Post #4 |
I use a computer, therefore I am.
|
I suppose the point is that unless the sceptic was there, then they can't speak with authority. All they can do is offer alternative suggestions, or go there to see if they can see for themselves. Funny how the phrase "I don't know", seems to be going out of fashion. In the case of your experience, Zombie, "I don't know", but I'd be less than honest if I didn't call it interesting. |
|
|
| baldrick69 | Jun 25 2012, 02:09 PM Post #5 |
Member
|
Call me uber-sceptical if you must but I don't believe that's zombie's personal experience. |
|
|
|
| Les | Jun 25 2012, 02:17 PM Post #6 |
|
I use a computer, therefore I am.
|
Okay, you're uber-sceptical. Waiting for Zombie then. |
|
|
|
| Fells | Jun 26 2012, 11:18 PM Post #7 |
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that
|
"Skeptic" is only capitalised if the word starts a sentence - it doesn't get capitalised simply because it is used in the context of philosophy.
According to whom?
Because a.) it is an incorrect definition and b.) because the dictionary you quoted gave four possible, yet distinct, definitions that can be mutually exclusive - why aren't you arguing that a "tear (rip) isn't a tear (lachrymal fluid)"
Clearly doesn't understand the definition of atheism either!
Without good evidence it is only a belief system(s) - unsurprisingly, the lack of good evidence is what causes scepticism, go figure! If things paranormal were accepted, based on good evidence, as real world phenomena they would become 'normal'. The very fact they are still called 'paranormal' is because they haven't been evidenced as fact. That makes them a belief system - acceptance of something as fact without good evidence to support it.
Erm, no, scepticism is not a belief system, it is merely the doubting of a given claim given the paucity of good evidence. The very fact that should good evidence come along to give confidence to the claim would change a sceptic's position tells you how erroneous that careless phrase was. Ever wonder why we no longer think that the sun is dragged across the sky by Jesus on a chariot?
You'll have to ask that of the religionists.
An interesting anecdote. I have no reason to doubt that you were convinced you saw something, but, you are asking scientists to consider changing the laws of physics based only on an anecdote - why is that acceptable to you? We have no way of knowing whether group conformity was at play here because you have not documented evidence of the event other than testimony - and testimony that wash't independent either. "Did you see that ghost", "I saw something, yeah, it could have been a ghost" "Quick,let's all run together". You may all have seen something mundane, but some of you may have conformed to the suggestion that it was of a ghostly nature - a suggestion created possibly by you or one of the other members of your group. Instead of spitting your dummy out, find the proper evidence, evidence that can be independently verified - not through collusion and conformity, which is most definitely a possibility here. Why is it definitely a possibility? Because it happens all the time, it's part of human nature. It is well understood and re-creatable. It's entirely because of the infallibility of one's senses that gives rise to doubt in the first place - what makes you think you have super-human senses?
You clearly don't understand what science is if that's what you say it is. You have given us no observable results - just testimony for which there is a perfectly rational and plausible explanation, maybe it's just not one you are prepared to accept. You are no sceptic, sir.
Yet again, you clearly don't understand the term 'scepticism'. Simply provide the good evidence and turn the sceptic into someone who accepts the claim as fact - it's that simple. Would it were that simple to convert a believer into a sceptic. |
|
|
|
| Fells | Jun 26 2012, 11:25 PM Post #8 |
|
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that
|
Surely you're not suggesting that those are zombie's words or his experience are you? One read of the OP and it is clear that those words could not have come from the fingers of zombie. |
|
|
|
| Fells | Jun 26 2012, 11:32 PM Post #9 |
|
I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that
|
They don't speak with authority - they express doubt. Say you didn't know me and I told you I could run 100m in 9 seconds, would you accept it? Or, would you doubt it? I'd like to know the reason for whichever answer you go with. |
|
|
|
| Duck | Jun 26 2012, 11:42 PM Post #10 |
Advanced Member
|
Naa that particular rant came from the fingers of Jeff Belanger over at http://www.ghostvillage.com/ |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Parapsychology · Next Topic » |
9:10 AM Jun 20