Interesting Ian said:
Sorry about not responding before. I was suspended for a week.
Anyway . . .
You are of course perfectly correct. Unfortunately it's a complete non-sequitur.
This is precisely the point in contention. The skeptic claims that something is irrational, but is quite unable to justify their assertion. So if even they don't know why it's irrational, I scarcely think that a rational person ought to take any notice of such a person. I am not interested in skeptics vague intuitive feelings. They need to present arguments.
Rehi Ian
There's a slight semantical difference in those statements, but it seems to boil down to semantics. The specific point in this thread (I'm new, so forgive me for not having the history, I'm going to ask you about another reference later in this post, because I'm not catching the difference) was that Lorri made some claims. Okay, if you make a claim, offer up some information, or some evidence. Nope, she didn't want to do that.
I have her on ignore at this point, so I don't want to talk too much about her specifically as I (probably) won't be reading her responses.
Let's pretend I show up and state that I can fly. People ask me how I can fly, and I refuse to state any information. So some people point out that many people can fly...with the aid of machines, etc. I say no, I'm able to levitate. But I'm not interested in offering proof. *I* know I can do it, and that's good enough for me, and people who doubt it are just close minded, stupid, blah blah blah.
Someone stating that they can fly (paranormally)....to
me isn't rational. However, is it possible? I think most people would certainly be willing to look at the evidence
regardless of their beliefs.
Going back to the issue at hand, which is a medium's ability to paranormally communicate with the dead...is that rational? Doesn't seem so to me. But...is it
possible? So far I haven't seen anything that demonstrates that it is. However whether one believes, doesn't believe, or hasn't made up their mind...I think that most are open to evidence of such.
Not to jump around too much, but recently (elsewhere) someone brought up the proof of .99999(repeating infinitely) = 1 as irrational. It doesn't *appear* to make sense to most people. I've had people kindly walk me through the proofs. But to many people (and honestly I include myself in that) it doesn't 'feel' right. It doesn't SEEM like it should make sense.
Huh?? Clearly if one claims that something is irrational then they need to provide reasons and/or evidence to substantiate their position.
So if I say .99999 (repeating infinitely) = 1 seems irrational, I can say it seems that way because it's not 1, it's a different and unique number. It doesn't make me right, of course, but it does certainly seem irrational to many people.
However, if someone makes a claim that will appear to most people to be irrational...
Clearly if one claims something that is irrational then they need to provide reasons and/or evidence to substantiate their position. Right?
Then they need to substaniate their position. If it's an article of faith, or belief, then fine. Those things can't be realistically argued. Belief or non-belief in 'God' or any diety boils down to faith. You can't prove or disprove it. Afterlife, same thing.
However if someone claims that they are able to contact and communicate with the dead, that's a claim that
can be substantiated.
Hmm how to rephrase it....Ian if you tell me you have a pet tiger, I may take it at face value, even though that's unusual. I happen to own an exotic animal myself. (Not THAT exotic though). If other things led me to believe that claim wasn't true (and I cared somehow about it) I might ask to see it if I lived locally to you, assuming we knew each other and that's how you told me about it. (Actually if someone I knew said they had a pet tiger I would ask to see it just to see it
). If you continually came up with excuses
then I would be skeptical about your claims. I can explain WHY I'm skeptical, and walk you through that process...but it's not like I'm running up to you on the street pulling you and others aside at random demanding to know whether or not you have a pet tiger then calling you a liar because I don't believe ANYONE can have a pet tiger.
I personally don't believe people can communicate with the dead. Am I wrong? Have I ever been wrong about things in my life? Oh sure, plenty of times.
Am I wrong about this? So far I haven't seen any evidence to indictate that
anyone can do it. Do I have any personal investment in it one way or another? Sure, I think most people do. I've said repeatedly I'd love to be wrong. Because it would prove that there is an existence after death, and I certainly would like that.
But I don't think it's unreasonable or bizarre to consider such claims irrational. It flies in the face of all reasonable information, logic and science. Again, does it mean it's not possible? I'm
willing to take a look at evidence, I'm not falling into a black swan fallacy. But since it's unreasonable to make the assumption...no I won't make it. I'm willing to take many things at face value, as are most people, either because I have no personal investment in it (the analogy on whether you have a tiger or not wouldn't matter for example) but on other things...yeah I want to see it.
Hope that makes sense.
As to the other thing I was going to ask you, I think you may have discussed it before, or it's familiar to most people because you've said it more than once, you've refered to a difference between 'skeptic' and 'sceptic'. Honestly I dismissed it the first time I saw it as sarcasm because it appeared to be such in its context, but I think you're refering to something much more specific.
I'm not familiar with 'sceptic' (I thought honestly it was a UK spelling hence the sarcasm) what do you mean, and what is the difference to which you refer? (Or if you could point out a thread where you previously mentioned it, I'd be much obliged).
Also just as a btw, I use analogies...a lot. I'm not trying to infer that one thing is
exactly like another by doing so, only that it is similar. Hopefully it's not too annoying, but I find it helps me to clarify what I mean more specifically.
