If all this paranormal/supernatural stuff was real... (phenomena, aliens, secret)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scientists are just as susceptible to this as anyone else.
Example: When Georges Lemaître first proposed the Big Bang Theory, most mainstream scientists --- including the great Albert Einstein --- scoffed at it, thinking it seemed too religious and reminiscent of, "Let there be light! And behold, there was light." Confirmation bias in play.
But to their credit, the scientists (including Einstein) started looking at the evidence and realized that Georges Lemaître was right. The Big Bang is good physics.
So yes, scientists are just as susceptible to confirmation bias as anyone else. But the great thing about science is that scientists' egos drive them to try to constantly prove their fellow scientists wrong, so they are eager to check the evidence to confirm or deny the conclusions.
In theory, yes, but in practice no. Simply because in science to get ahead you have to publish papers, and have YOUR papers cited, so if you go out on a limb and publish topics which are controversial or unpopular, then no-one else will cite your paper, you will not become known as an authority on that subject and you will more than likely be ridiculed for your research - however 'scientific' it is.
I am sure it is a dog-eat-dog world out there and scientists squabble like fishwives perhaps but still what they say goes for many people. Even when scientists disagree with each other, people choose which side they want to believe is correct and cite those reports.
Just look at the number of folks on here who are asking for proof of stuff we cannot measure yet. There is NO PROOF if we cannot measure it. We can only document it, but thats not good enough apparently.
Yes confirmation bias is a very real thing. Like the review I posted about Lily Dale. It is exactly how that place works in my biased opinion. Plus it was the second review so it was very easy to find.
Having been a believer and now a skeptic I see both sides of the topics in this section very well.
Where and when did you post a review of Lily Dale? Could you post a link? I would be interested in reading your review, although I doubt that I will agree with much of what you have to say. I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints.
You speak of Lily Dale as though it is some sort of amusement park for people who believe in the afterlife that was established to bilk unsuspecting visitors out of their money. Your choice of words speaks volumes- you know "how that place works". What does that even mean?
The term and the very concept of "confirmation bias" rules out any methods of learning, discovery, methodology, findings, philosophical endeavor, or practice that does not conform to scientific method.
That very idea is narrow minded and arrogant. "Confirmation bias" is a term that has been overused by pop psychologists and pseudo scientists so much that it has become all but meaningless. I am tired of the term.
Many topics worthy of study and exploration, some that are taught at prestigious universities and are not the province of "the lunatic fringe", cannot be understood nor proven by "scientific method".
Do not misunderstand - I am not at all opposed to scientific method. It's quite useful when we are studying one field - SCIENCE.
Fields where scientific method are not useful? - any subject other than those under the large but limited umbrella of "Science". It is of limited use in fields that do not strictly rely upon quantification and replication of an event in order to prove its' reality and existence.
For example, it is of limited use in psychology, with the exception of behaviorism, which most believe is of limited value in the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders.
Scientific method is useless it art or literary critique for example.
I believe science when it warns of global climate change. I believe that science is useful in the prevention of disease and in epidemiology. I am grateful to the scientists who brought us the smallpox, measles, polio, diphtheria and most recently, the COVID-19 vaccinations.
I am not a troglodyte or a conspiracy theorist.
It just seems that there is a sector of society that is almost obsessed with disproving the paranormal and, with deriding those of us who have had experiences and enjoy studying the topic.
Why the perverse obsession? Why not ignore it? Why spend anytime mocking and debunking anything that you think is silly or subjects that annoy you or that you despise? It does not have any effect on your life.
I don't enjoy most action movies, comic books and cartoons. Summer block buster movies usually bore me. Yet, I know that they make money for the film industry and that I am probably in the minority when in comes to my dislike of these subjects. So, I avoid them. Simple.
Even when it comes to the paranormal and the supernatural, some topics that seem to consume and delight others on this board, generally do not interest me.
For example, "Big Foot" and other unidentified species of animals. I personally do not think that they are paranormal because I think they exist. I just think science - and yes, I think the pursuit of Big Foot falls under the broad category of zoology - are real. It would be interesting to know what they are, and I have some ideas - but species that we have not yet discovered, even those that may be arcane or vestiges of another era - are biological and thus real.
Do I think they are scary? Not really. I spend little time in Siberia, Alaska, the forests of Maine or the Pacific Northwest, an encounter with Sasquatch or Big Foot does not frighten me.
Those of us in the supernatural community, who have had paranormal experiences, are psychics, astrologers, spiritualists, numerologists, palmists, shamans, healers' witches and more HAVE NOTHING to PROVE to YOU. It is not incumbent on us to make you believe and your lack of belief will not make us, our interest and passion go away.
You will also not make this subforum go away.
If I had it my way, dyed in the wool skeptics would be considered as "trolls" for making sarcastic and mocking posts. Most of us are not here to argue or to convince anyone of what we know is true, We would like to discuss it with others who share our sincere belief and interest.
Most of us just wish all of you would go away - unless you have an open mind and are interested in what we have to say - under our terms and using OUR language. NOT "scientific method".
You speak of Lily Dale as though it is some sort of amusement park for people who believe in the afterlife that was established to bilk unsuspecting visitors out of their money.
Seriously though, fraudulent mediums and psychics have been debunked and exposed as frauds and hucksters again and again and again and again. Their methods for deluding people are well documented. The evidence for their huckstery is overwhelming.
The evidence for genuine mediums ... ? I have never seen any. If it's out there, let's see it. My eyes, ears, and mind are open.
It just seems that there is a sector of society that is almost obsessed with disproving the paranormal and, with deriding those of us who have had experiences and enjoy studying the topic.
Why the perverse obsession? Why not ignore it? Why spend anytime mocking and debunking anything that you think is silly or subjects that annoy you or that you despise? It does not have any effect on your life.
If I had it my way, dyed in the wool skeptics would be considered as "trolls" for making sarcastic and mocking posts. Most of us are not here to argue or to convince anyone of what we know is true, We would like to discuss it with others who share our sincere belief and interest.
Most of us just wish all of you would go away - unless you have an open mind and are interested in what we have to say - under our terms and using OUR language. NOT "scientific method".
Opposing viewpoints are good even if all they do is help one better define one's own terms, better organise one's own thoughts, and better marshal one's own arguments. It is alway better to know what the opposition thinks and does than for them to keep it to themselves. For example, would you rather racists identify themselves and their thoughts or simply quietly think and behave according to their thoughts? I do not say this in jest. Science currently is trying to develop methods of reading people's thoughts. I hope that is never possible, but if it did become possible, think of the possibilities.... {{{SHUDDER}}}
The things other people think do effect our lives in many ways whether or not we are able to buy into their beliefs. For example, the idea of a soul that survives the mortal body and continues on in an afterlife has huge emotional and spiritual implications for us all whether or not we believe it is a reality. The possibility that it is true, and the possibility that it may be proved (scientifically or otherwise) means, for one thing, that we have not lost loved ones, and that fact alone will keep skeptics and everyone else coming back to the topic over and over again at various points in their lives.
Do not be frustrated with or insulted by skeptics. Treasure them. One day they may give you the satisfying opportunity to say "Ha! I TOLD YOU SO!!!"
Where and when did you post a review of Lily Dale? Could you post a link? I would be interested in reading your review, although I doubt that I will agree with much of what you have to say. I enjoy reading opposing viewpoints.
You speak of Lily Dale as though it is some sort of amusement park for people who believe in the afterlife that was established to bilk unsuspecting visitors out of their money. Your choice of words speaks volumes- you know "how that place works". What does that even mean?
The term and the very concept of "confirmation bias" rules out any methods of learning, discovery, methodology, findings, philosophical endeavor, or practice that does not conform to scientific method.
That very idea is narrow minded and arrogant. "Confirmation bias" is a term that has been overused by pop psychologists and pseudo scientists so much that it has become all but meaningless. I am tired of the term.
Many topics worthy of study and exploration, some that are taught at prestigious universities and are not the province of "the lunatic fringe", cannot be understood nor proven by "scientific method".
Do not misunderstand - I am not at all opposed to scientific method. It's quite useful when we are studying one field - SCIENCE.
Fields where scientific method are not useful? - any subject other than those under the large but limited umbrella of "Science". It is of limited use in fields that do not strictly rely upon quantification and replication of an event in order to prove its' reality and existence.
For example, it is of limited use in psychology, with the exception of behaviorism, which most believe is of limited value in the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders.
Scientific method is useless it art or literary critique for example.
I believe science when it warns of global climate change. I believe that science is useful in the prevention of disease and in epidemiology. I am grateful to the scientists who brought us the smallpox, measles, polio, diphtheria and most recently, the COVID-19 vaccinations.
I am not a troglodyte or a conspiracy theorist.
It just seems that there is a sector of society that is almost obsessed with disproving the paranormal and, with deriding those of us who have had experiences and enjoy studying the topic.
Why the perverse obsession? Why not ignore it? Why spend anytime mocking and debunking anything that you think is silly or subjects that annoy you or that you despise? It does not have any effect on your life.
I don't enjoy most action movies, comic books and cartoons. Summer block buster movies usually bore me. Yet, I know that they make money for the film industry and that I am probably in the minority when in comes to my dislike of these subjects. So, I avoid them. Simple.
Even when it comes to the paranormal and the supernatural, some topics that seem to consume and delight others on this board, generally do not interest me.
For example, "Big Foot" and other unidentified species of animals. I personally do not think that they are paranormal because I think they exist. I just think science - and yes, I think the pursuit of Big Foot falls under the broad category of zoology - are real. It would be interesting to know what they are, and I have some ideas - but species that we have not yet discovered, even those that may be arcane or vestiges of another era - are biological and thus real.
Do I think they are scary? Not really. I spend little time in Siberia, Alaska, the forests of Maine or the Pacific Northwest, an encounter with Sasquatch or Big Foot does not frighten me.
Those of us in the supernatural community, who have had paranormal experiences, are psychics, astrologers, spiritualists, numerologists, palmists, shamans, healers' witches and more HAVE NOTHING to PROVE to YOU. It is not incumbent on us to make you believe and your lack of belief will not make us, our interest and passion go away.
You will also not make this subforum go away.
If I had it my way, dyed in the wool skeptics would be considered as "trolls" for making sarcastic and mocking posts. Most of us are not here to argue or to convince anyone of what we know is true, We would like to discuss it with others who share our sincere belief and interest.
Most of us just wish all of you would go away - unless you have an open mind and are interested in what we have to say - under our terms and using OUR language. NOT "scientific method".
Post #29 in this thread has my copy/paste review, I believe it was from Tripadvisor. You can easily find 100s of negative reviews from there with a google search.
I for one do not want this subforum to go away and I am very interested in what you and others post. Just because I do not have the same beliefs does not make me a troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Seriously though, fraudulent mediums and psychics have been debunked and exposed as frauds and hucksters again and again and again and again. Their methods for deluding people are well documented. The evidence for their huckstery is overwhelming.
The evidence for genuine mediums ... ? I have never seen any. If it's out there, let's see it. My eyes, ears, and mind are open.
It just seems that there is a sector of society that is almost obsessed with disproving the paranormal and, with deriding those of us who have had experiences and enjoy studying the topic.
Why the perverse obsession? Why not ignore it? Why spend anytime mocking and debunking anything that you think is silly or subjects that annoy you or that you despise? It does not have any effect on your life.
That sector of society is the part which would control us and since most of the occult and paranormal depends on personal advancement it cannot be controlled by the State or by any other organisation.
Unfortunately, there are people on these forums who are employed by these organistaions to discredit, deny, and distract, if they ignored 'dangerous' posts, they would not be doing their job. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster, the Japanese government advertised jobs for people to debunk "fake" information about Fukushima when they and TEPCO did not want the truth to get out about their mistakes. The advertisement was posted in one of the two humungous threads on Fukushima on AboveTopSecret forum by someone who liven in Japan at the time. I dont advocate trying to find that post though, there are probably thousands of posts in those two threads.
As a previous moderator of another forum site, I have seen this behaviour first-hand and we have tracked IP addresses to universities and other government organisations. Any large discussion forum have people like this because they get so many indexes in the search engines and people use search engines to find what they need at any moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S
Seriously though, fraudulent mediums and psychics have been debunked and exposed as frauds and hucksters again and again and again and again. Their methods for deluding people are well documented. The evidence for their huckstery is overwhelming.
The evidence for genuine mediums ... ? I have never seen any. If it's out there, let's see it. My eyes, ears, and mind are open.
As have fraudulent doctors, scientists, lawyers, and any other profession, yet we still keep going back to them. "Oh, just a bad apple" you say.
When people say things like "I would love to see the evidence" or "I would love to believe" or similar words like that, it is all a sham because of the evidence is NEVER enough for these people. Either it is already enough or it never will be. It is just something people say to try to be on the other side, for the other side to think they are reasonable and want to be fair, but that overwhelming evidence to convince someone just doesn't happen very often. About as often as chickens teeth are found.
As have fraudulent doctors, scientists, lawyers, and any other profession, yet we still keep going back to them. "Oh, just a bad apple" you say.
When people say things like "I would love to see the evidence" or "I would love to believe" or similar words like that, it is all a sham because of the evidence is NEVER enough for these people. Either it is already enough or it never will be. It is just something people say to try to be on the other side, for the other side to think they are reasonable and want to be fair, but that overwhelming evidence to convince someone just doesn't happen very often. About as often as chickens teeth are found.
I can show you LOTS of good, genuine doctors, scientists, and lawyers. Well, maybe not lawyers.
If you held a loaded gun to my head, I couldn't show you one good medium or psychic.
I can show you LOTS of good, genuine doctors, scientists, and lawyers. Well, maybe not lawyers.
If you held a loaded gun to my head, I couldn't show you one good medium or psychic.
When you and Sam have finished patting each other on the back, I want to ask you how many mediums you know and how many scientists you know. Actually, that does not mean anything at all because we are still arguing beliefs.
Folks go to ask their priest or religious leader all kinds of questions and get advice from them. Has anyone stopped to evaluate just how correct their advice is? No, they havent mainly because they have no idea what they are saying about their religion is 'the truth'. For them, of course it is the truth because it is their belief.
You have religious leaders making judgements according to their beliefs and so you also have mediums who have probably more years of experience than most religious leaders. They might be able to quote you the Bible but more than that, what do they really know about the spirit world, the dead, and the paranormal?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does that even mean? 
I have never seen any. If it's out there, let's see it. My eyes, ears, and mind are open.
