This is what pathological skeptics believe

[PixyMisa]

Like PixyMisa? Most of the people on here are like him; they just are not quite so vocal and straightforward about it.

How can you say that?!

I've agreed with you, what, twice now? Maybe three times?

 

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa's not the most diplomatic one out there, but "No." is perfectly acceptable default position, considering that the people who get the "No." treatement are usually the sort who make assertions without any evidence whatsoever.

Actually, PixyMisa 1.0 was much more patient, polite and diplomatic. She was also smarter than me, which was kind of scary. (There was also a 0.9 beta, which was a bit shaky.)

But it was too much work, and she eventually gave way to version 2.0, who favours a more confrontational approach. Um, and is also a lot more like the real me.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ian,

And what did Pixymisa post that wasn’t absolutely spot on ?

You guys take umbrage at us having a default position of “it is most probably bull#$@” when presented with a paranormal claim.

This position has only been established a over a period of time and countless zillions of crap claims !.. Remember there have been NO claims that have been verified, No proof.. NO evidence.

But… even though we (or I do anyway) immediately think a paranormal claim is most likely crap.. we (I) STILL do the hard yards and research it and look for evidence or alternative explanations, expert opinion, scientific examination ETC ETC !!!!

THIS is what separates us from the nutters who just believe regardless. Sure we think it doesn’t exist BUT we search for evidence to back our assertions !

And like Pixymisa inferred and I reiterate.. it is hard to shake the default position when it is RIGHT EVERY TIME !

 

[Bronze Dog]

Exactly, Aussie Thinker. Heck, Randi's staking a million dollars on that default No. And what do we get from the woo-woos? Excuses, evasions, and venom. The few who've had the balls and/or passion to put their powers to the test have failed. And the ones who don't accept the negative result? Excuses, evasions, and venom.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Like PixyMisa? Most of the people on here are like him; they just are not quite so vocal and straightforward about it.

There are some "real (methodological) skeptics" as you put it eg many parapsychologists, but they are outnumbered by the extreme "skeptics".

Well, Im talking about their blind acceptance of certain theoretical frameworks that are simply explanations (this is that have no ontological reality beyond language), not about skeptisism towards the paranormal.

 

[PixyMisa]

Well, Im talking about their blind acceptance of certain theoretical frameworks that are simply explanations (this is that have no ontological reality beyond language)

Like what?

 

[Batman Jr.]

Like what?

I've met self-proclaimed skeptics that misconstrue Occam's Razor to mean that anything we don't know about or that is completely undetectable to us doesn't exist. This is a kind of thinking I would regard as religious and not skeptical in the least no matter how it attempts to dress itself. I've also met people who seem to think that they understand perfectly the relationship between conscious perception and the brain by incorrectly assuming that they can know for certain the state of everyone else's consciousness or that other people even possess conscious minds at all. I often get blasted when I bring up my own weak-solipsist convictions; no one has been able to adequately refute them as of yet.

 

[PixyMisa]

I've met self-proclaimed skeptics that misconstrue Occam's Razor to mean that anything we don't know about or that is completely undetectable to us doesn't exist.

Okay, I have seen people ascribing mystical powers to Occam's Razor. It's a rule of thumb, a way of cutting away the least likely hypotheses.

On the other hand, if something is completely undetectable (even in principle) then it doesn't exist. I don't think that's what you meant, though.

This is a kind of thinking I would regard as religious and not skeptical in the least no matter how it attempts to dress itself. I've also met people who seem to think that they understand perfectly the relationship between conscious perception and the brain by incorrectly assuming that they can know for certain the state of everyone else's consciousness or that other people even possess conscious minds at all.

Well, with the preponderance of evidence that we have, the idea that other people don't possess conscious minds is utterly absurd. It's not proof in the mathematical sense, but it's certainly not something I'm going to worry about.

I often get blasted when I bring up my own weak-solipsist convictions; no one has been able to adequately refute them as of yet.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by weak solipsism, but solipsism is self-contained and self-consistent, and is not refutable. It's just useless nonsense.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Weak solipsism (sp?)? That's a new one on me. I take it that means you can't know for *certain* that anything outside your mind exists, rather than assert that it doesn't exists?

 

[PixyMisa]

If that's what he means, then he's right.

To get past solipsism, you have to make one (or more) assumptions. Some of these assumptions are more plausible than others, but they are all assumptions.

 

[Kopji]

Questionnaire
You instinctively know from just reading that some new paranormal claim isn’t true. You feel angry, you don’t feel doubt.

Yeah, sometimes. Maybe it is because I meet so many believers (aka "clients"). Believers share some common traits, one of which is a difficulty in choosing. If anything could be true, how to choose what is, and what is not? Maybe that's
too harsh though, I certainly make enough mistakes.
Being skeptical is a perspective that allows me to take my mistakes and learn.

- You believe extraordinary paranormal claims requires extraordinary evidence.... yet trust an extraordinary accusation of paranormal fraud only requires anecdotal rumour.

Nope. I'd settle for any REAL evidence at all. All the so-called psychic studies I've seen are badly flawed. All... of... them...
This is not a matter of needing more evidence.

- You have total faith in the opinion of CSICOP, an organization set up to oppose paranormal claims with nothing but something else explanations..
Nope. I like a good 'skeptic' article, but mostly find it rather dry and dull stuff. Like reading about why clothes become clean after being washed.

You believe paranormal belief is of grave danger to humanity . You petition to stop paranormal claims in the media to protect the public from making their own minds up ….

Nope. That's probably not a very skeptical position considering we've lived with it thousands of years. I believe it is only a symptom of a deeper need for order and to be in control. Perhaps people who believe in the paranormal seek control and authority.

- You believe a scientist who claims a real paranormal effect is an error prone idiot and a scientist who finds nothing paranormal was unquestionably correct. You support peer reviewed journals only publishing correct outcomes to prevent funding for ‘pathological science’

I am asked to give up my little island of sanity for the ocean of insanity on their word. Humm, maybe I just have issues with authority figures. My comment on the psychic studies holds here too: Make the case or stop demanding I follow along on the strength of your authority.

- You believe the paranormal (i.e. contradictory to normal established scientific principles) must follow normal scientific principles or it cannot exist.

Sheesh. Nope. Show up, float around in the air or whatever you claim to do, claim the million bucks and hey, I'm there.

 

[H3LL]

I like the skeptical view illustrated in Asimov's quote:

'The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

A person that looks at idea X and finds that it does not fit idea Y, or does not work for circumstances Z should find out why or find another, better way.

Newton theories vs. Einstein theories are perfect examples.

The greatest achievements in science are those that have destroyed or presented a better alternative to established ideas.

Those great achievements need to be replicated by others and demonstrate the capacity to predict observable events and in the simplest form possible.

I fail to understand why the woo contingent feel that they are somehow excluded from this reasoning.

Person A bends spoons and claims it is an invisible, undetectable force from an invisible, undetectable being with invisible, incomprehensible powers existing in an unknown, undetectable place that only invisible, undetectable bits of people can visit is fine for them to say.

However, person B easily and obviously shows that the same thing is achieved by bending the spoon with your hands when no one is looking.

To me, when this happens I feel that it is required of person A to show that they are definitely not doing what person B is doing.

The woos seem unable to understand that the collection of undetectables is less plausible than the obvious, easily replicated, easily understood demonstration/explanation in the real world.

BTW, before someone 'spoons' me to death, I use it as an example for all paranormal/super-natural claims.

The woos seem able (maybe?) to exercise great critical thinking when buying a used car, but unable to apply the same thinking to their cherished beliefs.

Interesting Ian is a perfect example of a person firmly enamoured of person A and discounting of person B.

I'm not picking on you Ian, I'm entertained by your posts, but you are well known here and our best example of the privative of skepticism.

(P!ss-drinking, money-conning, voodoo-sticking Jambo is just plain wierd, so he doesn't count).

 

[MRC_Hans]

On the offhand rejecting of paranormal claims (and yes, I confess I do that often), look at it this way:

The scientific method has enabled us to create a comprehensive and consistent map of the universe, from subatomic particles to intergalactic space. True, there are numerous "white spots" on that map still, and there probably always will be. However, it hangs together, and it allows us to do a lot of fantastic things, like writing to people all over the world on an internet forum. Consider the number of sciences needed to achieve that: Physics, chemistry, electronics, information theory, cybernetics, even chaos theory. Now, if one single link of this chain of knowledge were to be fundamentally flawed, you wouldn't be able to read this text.

A large proportion of the paranormal claims presented requires some part of the scientific map to be seriously flawed. Preciously few will fit into one of the white spots of things we just don't yet know about.

When I read a claim on the internet that requires the entire physical framework that enables me to do just that (read it on the internet) to be rewritten, I think I am well excused for assuming that the claim, and not the reality I am watching, is wrong. And to ask for extraordinary evidence.

Oh, and on the solipsism thingy, I have posted this before:

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism .(tm)

Disclaimer: This experiment might not only bruise your ego, but also your body, so you undertake it entirely at your own risk. I will not be held responsible for any consequences, including, but not limited to, loss of pride, peace of mind, teeth, etc.

1) Find a busy city street.

2) Wait for large aggressive looking male to walk by (generally, the more tattoos, the better).

3) Walk up behind said large aggressive looking male and direct a solid kick at the lower, rear portion of his body.

4) When he turns, tell him: "That was because you mother is so ugly".

5) Observe.

You will now have tangible evidence for the following:

a) You exist physically.

b) At least one other entity exists physically.

c) You and that other entity are in communication, both abstractly and physically.

d) The other entity probably has a mother.

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality .

Good luck!

Hans

 

[PixyMisa]

You may conclude that all your observations are, after all, part of an illusion, but the experience should convince you that you had better treat the illusion as reality.

Right.

The universe behaves as though it exists. More than that, it behaves as though it is what exists, i.e. that materialism is correct.

This isn't proof, it just means that any other metaphysical framework has an awful lot of catching up to do. (Except in Ian's case, and I think we've established that he lives in a parallel universe.)

 

[CFLarsen]

MRC_Hans' practical test of Solipsism

No, no, you got it wrong: The tattoo guy is a product of your mind!!

The Krazy Kat Experiment

The replies I got were generally composed of four-letter words...

 

[PixyMisa]

Come to think of it, Ian doesn't live in a parallel universe so much as a perpendicular one.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, no, you got it wrong: The tattoo guy is a product of your mind!!

The Krazy Kat Experiment

The replies I got were generally composed of four-letter words...

Well, my test does not involve homicide and (probably not) suicide, and anybody can perform it, so even if the proof value is a bit lower, I frankly prefer it.

I have presented it to both Lifegazer and Iaccus, and interestingly both of them were able to predict the outcome, even without actually doing the test.

Pixy Misa: I think II's universe is spherical. A very small sphere.

Hans

 

[Interesting Ian]

And what did Pixymisa post that wasn’t absolutely spot on ?

You guys take umbrage at us having a default position of “it is most probably bull#$@” when presented with a paranormal claim.

This position has only been established a over a period of time and countless zillions of crap claims !.. Remember there have been NO claims that have been verified, No proof.. NO evidence.

Verified? What does that mean? Obviously it takes a statistical analysis. Meta-analysis strongly suggests an effect, if you don't agree you have to say why.

And like Pixymisa inferred and I reiterate.. it is hard to shake the default position when it is RIGHT EVERY TIME ! [/B]

When is it right? When have I ever been shown to be wrong about anything in my paranormal beliefs? Every paranormal phenomenon mentioned on here which subsequently got debunked I said was ridiculous before it got debunked.

Anyway, it's not right every time. Time and time and time again it is shown to be wrong. NDEs really do occur (no matter what they are), lucid dreams really do happen, rocks really do fall from the sky etc etc.

Take a look here

I'll quote a bit since I'm sure that people will simply close their eyes, scream, and say "no I'm not looking at your links"!

From Link
1879, Thomas Edison developed the first successful electric light bulb. He was already famous for over 150 other successful inventions, including the telegraph and the phonograph. But when Edison announced his new invention, scientists worldwide were incredulous. England’s most distinguished electrical engineer, Sir William Siemens, who had been unsuccessfully working on electric light bulbs for a decade, said, “Such startling announcements as these should be deprecated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to its true progress.”

In response to the critics, Edison wired up the streets of Menlo Park, New Jersey, the location of his famous laboratory, and artificially illuminated the night sky for the first time in history. A Professor Henry Morton, who lived nearby and personally knew Edison, did not bother to view the evening exhibition, which went on night after night. Instead, he was so confident that the claimed invention was impossible that he offered the sober opinion that Edison’s experiments were a “conspicuous failure, trumpeted as a wonderful success. A fraud upon the public.”

Of course, Edison had already been soundly denounced as a fraud for his invention of the phonograph years earlier, so one can imagine his amusement upon reading the opinion of Edwin Weston, a respected specialist in arc lighting, who asserted that Edison’s claims were “so manifestly absurd as to indicate a positive want of knowledge of the electric circuit and the principles governing the construction and operation of electrical machines.”

 

[PixyMisa]

So what exactly do you want, Ian?

You've presented convincing evidence that normal events happen.

This comes as a great shock to many of us, but we will struggle to go on with our lives.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Exactly, Aussie Thinker. Heck, Randi's staking a million dollars on that default No.

Er . .I rather think not. What happened to Beth Clarkson's claim?

And what do we get from the woo-woos? Excuses, evasions, and venom.

Ummm . .I think not. Certainly not in Beth's case. Excuses, evasions and venom were directed at her

The few who've had the balls and/or passion to put their powers to the test have failed.

As I keep asking, how does anyone know that he doesn't simply accept ridiculous claims? Everything that I have read suggests that only ludicrous claims are accepted and never anything which research and experience suggests probably exists So let's cut the cr@p should we?