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.
Lovely. So when you say I should check it myself, but I get a negative result, it "does not apply". Had I checked it and got a positive result you would have been all happy. And you call ME circular? This is comical.
Basically you are openly admitting you will accept anecdote that fits your preconceptions and reject anecdote that does not. This is not honest son, try harder.
So, after a hundred and some posts and having been previously asked the same question by another poster, you suddenly tried it in your own. Why haven't you mentioned this before?
I'll flat out call you deceptive. Now you're circular and deceptive, hows that?
So, after a hundred and some posts and having been previously asked the same question by another poster, you suddenly tried it in your own. Why haven't you mentioned this before?
Three reasons. The first and most obvious is no one actually asked.
The second is that my having done so is purely anecdotal. I can not prove I did, nor have you any reason to beleive I did. Just like CalGuy making up the story above about how he had a living room full of people he tried it on and they all agreed with him. How are we to know that is true? I do not like presenting arguments or evidence I can not back up and show to be true or at least credible and claiming to have experimented on such things myself is something I can say... but I can not show is true.
Third - Because I knew you would do what you JUST did above in your last post which is dismiss any negative result on my part. That is what people who believe in unsubstantiated claims like you do. You latch on to the positive anecdotes and wave them like a flag and you dismiss as irrelevant anyone who has a negative anecdote to tell. If people's anecdotes do not support your claim they magically and suddenly "do not apply". Such are the depths of intellectual dishonesty people have to go to when their claims are supported by nothing but cherry picked anecdote and nothing else.... which alas MANY claims in this world are, not just the ones on this thread.
But I can assure you that when I say no one has substantiated the claims with any evidence that it is true... I include myself in that as I too have failed to find any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
I'll flat out call you deceptive. Now you're circular and deceptive, hows that?
You can name call any names you want. It will not make it true just like calling the sky Red will not suddenly make it turn red. If it makes you feel better about yourself however, you can fall back to any level of name calling you feel suits your maturity level.
Nozz,
Now that the power is back on after these strong winds of the past two days, I am set to reply.
Above you stated I had a "room full of people" and you find it doubtful.
If you read the post, you would see that it was three people, not a room full, and no recording was done at that time.
The three people had no knowledge of any recording experiments I was involved in.
I simply asked them to listen to a section of a tape I had, and wanted them to tell me what was said on that tape.
They all answered the same,as to what was said on the tape.
Whether you believe this or not, I couldn't care less.
I know it is true, and that's all that matters.
Bob.
Three reasons. The first and most obvious is no one actually asked.
The second is that my having done so is purely anecdotal. I can not prove I did, nor have you any reason to beleive I did. Just like CalGuy making up the story above about how he had a living room full of people he tried it on and they all agreed with him. How are we to know that is true? I do not like presenting arguments or evidence I can not back up and show to be true or at least credible and claiming to have experimented on such things myself is something I can say... but I can not show is true.
Third - Because I knew you would do what you JUST did above in your last post which is dismiss any negative result on my part. That is what people who believe in unsubstantiated claims like you do. You latch on to the positive anecdotes and wave them like a flag and you dismiss as irrelevant anyone who has a negative anecdote to tell. If people's anecdotes do not support your claim they magically and suddenly "do not apply". Such are the depths of intellectual dishonesty people have to go to when their claims are supported by nothing but cherry picked anecdote and nothing else.... which alas MANY claims in this world are, not just the ones on this thread.
But I can assure you that when I say no one has substantiated the claims with any evidence that it is true... I include myself in that as I too have failed to find any.
You can name call any names you want. It will not make it true just like calling the sky Red will not suddenly make it turn red. If it makes you feel better about yourself however, you can fall back to any level of name calling you feel suits your maturity level.
You know a thing or two about backhanded disguised remarks and intellecual dishonesty.
Honestly after reading over a hundred posts about this topic and in the later pages mostly just a few people going back and forth I think everyone needs to take a chill pill. Both sides are making legitimate points but also overreacting to perceived flaws in arguments and fighting over semantics and becoming self righteous as a result.
The reality is that I think there is a lot of false dichotomy going on here. There is this notion on one side that if you personally believe anything that is not 100% provable beyond a reasonable doubt then you are some horribly intellectually dishonest person, a fraud and a gullible moron who only sees and hears what he or she wants to (paraphrasing). On the other side there is a perception that if one does not accept one's evidence (or data if you prefer) then one must be totally closed minded even though the other person admitted the possibility that some earth shattering proof could convince them in the future.
To lay my cards on the table I am someone who does believe in supernatural phenomenon but also recognize there is no way at present I can prove every reasonable person my view is the correct one. There are reasonable people who believe as I do and there are reasonable people who do not and there are unreasonable people on both sides as well, there is no black and white.
So anyways as far as what is considered "evidence" and what not I do have to point out even that is relatively subjective. To me EVP is evidence but not undeniable proof that nearly every reasonable person would accept. There was one article that someone linked that preferred to call EVP data (i.e. worthy of future investigation) and not proof and I think that is reasonable as well. I define "evidence" the way a court of law does, both the prosecution and defense present pieces of evidence that they argue back and forth about, obviously both sides cannot be correct and it is up to the jury to decide if the aggregate evidence is "proof". No need to take out an Oxford dictionary and correct people, I am just pointing out that when people talk about evidence and proof they are not always referring to the same thing and people are not simply stupid for having personal definitions.
It is also not a black and white issue to me. There is a spectrum from "totally no evidence at all" such as the claim that my computer is actually a pink unicorn to "total proof that any reasonable person would believe" such as the claim that gravity exists. To me EVP evidence is somewhere in between, clearly I think it is something but reasonable people can disagree. Obviously not all evidence is created equal otherwise people wouldn't say things like "well we have some evidence" or "we have a lot of evidence", if evidence was an absolute term one piece of evidence would close a case. So when people say "EVP is no evidence" by your own personal definition you might be correct and perhaps are adhering to the Oxford definition of the word "evidence" but to the person you are saying it to it might come across that tons and tons of EVP data has no meaning at all and never could end of story, that is why it is perceived as being condescending. I tend to shy away from absolute statements of any kind so that is where I am coming from, I don't view EVP as just nothing but I also understand that it is not everything either and there are possible alternative explanations out there. Hardcore skeptics in my view do a lot of intellectual grandstanding when they make absolute statements or at least that is how it is perceived by others. When arguing it is often good advice to understand the other person's possible perceptions of reality even if one does not agree. I can understand the psychological motivations to make an intellectual grandstand, it makes your case sound better if you say "it is total bunk" as opposed to "well it is not great evidence or data but yadda yadda yadda". The previously mentioned "confirmation bias" also works both ways, some skeptics will look glowingly at evidence that is perceived to debunk and gloss over evidence that supports the other side. Also before anyone gets all sensitive I am not pointing fingers here I am just pointing out that confirmation bias works both ways and some feel that just because "I am a rational scientist" that they are somehow immune to the human failings they accuse others of having, unless you are like some Vulcan from Star Trek just about everyone on earth has something emotionally invested in this.
Also one other thing just because the mind can play tricks on you or see patterns in something does not prove or disprove anything. I don't think anyone is denying that the mind can play tricks on you, to think otherwise would be silly. However just because the mind can play tricks on you does not mean that every supposed supernatural experience therefore must be a figment of the mind. Also even the claim that "the mind often hears or sees things that are not really there" is up to questioning because how can one establish that indeed there really is no voice or face there? Perhaps the mind is programmed by supernatural forces to pick up on supposedly random patterns because they are not random and really there. That cannot be proven with current human knowledge but it is interesting food for thought. The reality could very be that some things are figments of our imagination and other things are the genuine article, it is not mutually exclusive.
The problem is that both sides need to realize this is a very tricky subject that is not as black and white as people made it seem. Paranormal stuff by definition almost chaotic to an orderly worldview, it really is unlike anything else out there because it is harder to pin down than anything else than what we current perceive as the physical. For instance, I think someone already said something like this somewhere, if you want to prove that someone is hallucinating in seeing a cat (assuming a physical living cat here) all you have to do is put someone in a room with no cats and ask them if they see it or not. When it comes to ghosts it is impossible to tell if someone is hallucinating or not because we cannot establish that a ghost is in the room or not so it could be someone seeing or hearing a ghost or it could be a hallucination or white noise. This is in part why the phrase "supernatural" exists, at the end of the day it is just a word but it describes something we cannot isolate and thus it is nearly impossible to research with total accuracy given our current knowledge.
My point is that people need to be less sensitive about semantics and try to understand the spirit or gist of what people are saying and not take it so literally. When someone says "I have undeniable proof" don't assume that they mean they have proof that will convince every reasonable person or they are a fraud, I mean why assume a deceptive intent? Both sides need to recognize that there are reasonable people who have different conclusions then there own. If this was a court of law it would be a hung jury.
Last edited by chicago103; 12-03-2011 at 09:40 AM..
For those who've experienced paranormal activity that cannot otherwise be debunked, its real, not a tricky subject.
The real issue, this is a paranormal thread, if you don't believe state your thoughts and be on your way. For this reason those who would like to post experiences don't.....plain and simple.
There are many requesting administration open a paranormal new age type forum.
Should they grant the request, is this what we have to look forward too?
Thanks for adding your thoughts.
For posters interested in the paranormal, there's currently a thread in H&R.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicago103
Honestly after reading over a hundred posts about this topic and in the later pages mostly just a few people going back and forth I think everyone needs to take a chill pill. Both sides are making legitimate points but also overreacting to perceived flaws in arguments and fighting over semantics and becoming self righteous as a result.
The reality is that I think there is a lot of false dichotomy going on here. There is this notion on one side that if you personally believe anything that is not 100% provable beyond a reasonable doubt then you are some horribly intellectually dishonest person, a fraud and a gullible moron who only sees and hears what he or she wants to (paraphrasing). On the other side there is a perception that if one does not accept one's evidence (or data if you prefer) then one must be totally closed minded even though the other person admitted the possibility that some earth shattering proof could convince them in the future.
To lay my cards on the table I am someone who does believe in supernatural phenomenon but also recognize there is no way at present I can prove every reasonable person my view is the correct one. There are reasonable people who believe as I do and there are reasonable people who do not and there are unreasonable people on both sides as well, there is no black and white.
So anyways as far as what is considered "evidence" and what not I do have to point out even that is relatively subjective. To me EVP is evidence but not undeniable proof that nearly every reasonable person would accept. There was one article that someone linked that preferred to call EVP data (i.e. worthy of future investigation) and not proof and I think that is reasonable as well. I define "evidence" the way a court of law does, both the prosecution and defense present pieces of evidence that they argue back and forth about, obviously both sides cannot be correct and it is up to the jury to decide if the aggregate evidence is "proof". No need to take out an Oxford dictionary and correct people, I am just pointing out that when people talk about evidence and proof they are not always referring to the same thing and people are not simply stupid for having personal definitions.
It is also not a black and white issue to me. There is a spectrum from "totally no evidence at all" such as the claim that my computer is actually a pink unicorn to "total proof that any reasonable person would believe" such as the claim that gravity exists. To me EVP evidence is somewhere in between, clearly I think it is something but reasonable people can disagree. Obviously not all evidence is created equal otherwise people wouldn't say things like "well we have some evidence" or "we have a lot of evidence", if evidence was an absolute term one piece of evidence would close a case. So when people say "EVP is no evidence" by your own personal definition you might be correct and perhaps are adhering to the Oxford definition of the word "evidence" but to the person you are saying it to it might come across that tons and tons of EVP data has no meaning at all and never could end of story, that is why it is perceived as being condescending. I tend to shy away from absolute statements of any kind so that is where I am coming from, I don't view EVP as just nothing but I also understand that it is not everything either and there are possible alternative explanations out there. Hardcore skeptics in my view do a lot of intellectual grandstanding when they make absolute statements or at least that is how it is perceived by others. When arguing it is often good advice to understand the other person's possible perceptions of reality even if one does not agree. I can understand the psychological motivations to make an intellectual grandstand, it makes your case sound better if you say "it is total bunk" as opposed to "well it is not great evidence or data but yadda yadda yadda". The previously mentioned "confirmation bias" also works both ways, some skeptics will look glowingly at evidence that is perceived to debunk and gloss over evidence that supports the other side. Also before anyone gets all sensitive I am not pointing fingers here I am just pointing out that confirmation bias works both ways and some feel that just because "I am a rational scientist" that they are somehow immune to the human failings they accuse others of having, unless you are like some Vulcan from Star Trek just about everyone on earth has something emotionally invested in this.
Also one other thing just because the mind can play tricks on you or see patterns in something does not prove or disprove anything. I don't think anyone is denying that the mind can play tricks on you, to think otherwise would be silly. However just because the mind can play tricks on you does not mean that every supposed supernatural experience therefore must be a figment of the mind. Also even the claim that "the mind often hears or sees things that are not really there" is up to questioning because how can one establish that indeed there really is no voice or face there? Perhaps the mind is programmed by supernatural forces to pick up on supposedly random patterns because they are not random and really there. That cannot be proven with current human knowledge but it is interesting food for thought. The reality could very be that some things are figments of our imagination and other things are the genuine article, it is not mutually exclusive.
The problem is that both sides need to realize this is a very tricky subject that is not as black and white as people made it seem. Paranormal stuff by definition almost chaotic to an orderly worldview, it really is unlike anything else out there because it is harder to pin down than anything else than what we current perceive as the physical. For instance, I think someone already said something like this somewhere, if you want to prove that someone is hallucinating in seeing a cat (assuming a physical living cat here) all you have to do is put someone in a room with no cats and ask them if they see it or not. When it comes to ghosts it is impossible to tell if someone is hallucinating or not because we cannot establish that a ghost is in the room or not so it could be someone seeing or hearing a ghost or it could be a hallucination or white noise. This is in part why the phrase "supernatural" exists, at the end of the day it is just a word but it describes something we cannot isolate and thus it is nearly impossible to research with total accuracy given our current knowledge.
My point is that people need to be less sensitive about semantics and try to understand the spirit or gist of what people are saying and not take it so literally. When someone says "I have undeniable proof" don't assume that they mean they have proof that will convince every reasonable person or they are a fraud, I mean why assume a deceptive intent? Both sides need to recognize that there are reasonable people who have different conclusions then there own. If this was a court of law it would be a hung jury.
For those who've experienced paranormal activity that cannot otherwise be debunked, its real, not a tricky subject.
The real issue, this is a paranormal thread, if you don't believe state your thoughts and be on your way. For this reason those who would like to post experiences don't.....plain and simple.
There are many requesting administration open a paranormal new age type forum.
Should they grant the request, is this what we have to look forward too?
Thanks for adding your thoughts.
For posters interested in the paranormal, there's currently a thread in H&R.
I agree with you here. I don't want to try and get inside someone's head but it puzzles me why someone would go on a forum supposedly about cities and go to an obscure corner of it and argue semantics for pages on end with someone who mentions they have paranormal experiences. This is not an academic conference at Oxford where personal anecdotes without the actual recordings would be worthy of such rebukes. I suppose they would say they argue this way for some high and noble purpose like "for the virtue of science" but I call BS, I think it smacks of intellectual grandstanding and ego boosting or at best being overly sensitive and misinterpreting what the other person is saying. Honestly the discussion has gone on for so long I actually lost interest in who is right and who is wrong because it has essentially turned into intellectual dick waving rather than some honest search for the truth.
"Chicago",
I like what you have to say.
Apparently you are a "middle of the road" person, looking at both sides, and that is commendable.
When it comes to evidence, and proof, I felt I offered it by enclosing links to people who have been involved in evp for many years.
In those links were actual segments of voice recordings.
If that isn't evidence, then I don't know what is.
It is there in black and white, and I just can't understand , how any one looking at those clips could come away with anything other than they are recorded voices of those who have passed on.
Some claimed it is white noise picking up radio broadcast.
That being the case, how are voices picked up when instead of a radio, a computer is being used as the electrical medium by which these voices are put on tape?
There isn't any white noise on a computer.
Bob.
If you read the post, you would see that it was three people, not a room full, and no recording was done at that time.
"Room full of people" is a turn of phrase, and you know it. Do not hide behind pedantry to make a point you otherwise can not make. I also never claimed a recording was done at the time. I just said you were claiming that a room full of people was agreeing with you.
This is an unverifiable and possible made up anecdote and hence is not evidence. Thus far you HAVE no evidence. That is my issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode
You know a thing or two about backhanded disguised remarks and intellecual dishonesty.
Way to ignore everything I just wrote and hide behind attacking the poster and not the post. If ad hominem if the best you have to offer on a thread such as this... I am baffled as to why you bother posting at all. You can name call any names you want. It will not make it true just like calling the sky Red will not suddenly make it turn red. If it makes you feel better about yourself however, you can fall back to any level of name calling you feel suits your maturity level.
There is this notion on one side that if you personally believe anything that is not 100% provable beyond a reasonable doubt then you are some horribly intellectually dishonest person, a fraud and a gullible moron who only sees and hears what he or she wants to (paraphrasing).
I am not sure WHO you are paraphrasing here as you conveniently left that out, but I think you are misrepresenting wildly what many people here are saying.
In science for example nothing is EVER considered 100% proven. Nor is anyone here claiming it needs to be. I certainly am not.
No the issue is NOT that people are espousing things that they then fail to prove 100%. The issue is that they are espousing things that they are 100% unable to even provide a shred of even an iota of substantiation for. The evidence level is at 0% not 100%.
And there is a MASSIVE difference between saying "You are not proving that to me 100%" and "You have not substantiated that claim at all, even a little bit, whatsoever".
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.
) all you have to do is put someone in a room with no cats and ask them if they see it or not. When it comes to ghosts it is impossible to tell if someone is hallucinating or not because we cannot establish that a ghost is in the room or not so it could be someone seeing or hearing a ghost or it could be a hallucination or white noise. This is in part why the phrase "supernatural" exists, at the end of the day it is just a word but it describes something we cannot isolate and thus it is nearly impossible to research with total accuracy given our current knowledge.
