Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Poltergeists!
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 172 (424609)
09-27-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 3:15 PM


So why is it OK for me to believe that stuff happens after death, when no empirical proof exists; yet it's foolish to believe poltergeists exist?
I'm just saying that there's more likely models of post-mortal existence than spooks and specters. Tipler outlines an essentially unfalsifiable model of post-death resurrection that is entirely atheist and non-supernatural, which he calls "the Omega Point":
quote:
The Omega Point is a term used by Tulane University professor of mathematics and physics Frank J. Tipler to describe what he maintains is a necessary cosmological state in the far future of the universe. According to his Omega Point Theory, as the universe comes to an end in a particular form of the Big Crunch, the computational capacity of the universe is capable of increasing at a sufficient rate that this computation rate is accelerating exponentially faster than the time running out. In principle, a simulation run on this universal computer can thus continue forever in its own terms, even though the universe lasts only a finite amount of proper time. Prof. Tipler states this theory requires that the current known laws of physics are true descriptions of reality, and it requires there be intelligent civilizations in existence at the appropriate time to exploit the computational capacity of such an environment.
Tipler identifies this state of infinite information capacity with God. The implication of this theory for present-day humans is that this ultimate cosmic computer will be able to run computer simulations of all intelligent life that has ever lived, by recreating simulations of all possible quantum brain states within the master simulation. This would manifest as a simulated reality. From the perspective of the inhabitant, the Omega Point represents an infinite-duration afterlife, which could take any imaginable form due to its virtual nature.
I'm not convinced that this will happen, but it could happen - the end of the universe is a long time away, who knows what could happen. And it certainly doesn't violate any laws of physics, unlike ghosts and goblins.
But Tipler believes it, and he was an atheist when he came up with it. (He thinks that it's proven Christianity, somehow, so he's a Christian now.)
Before I came to this forum, though, I'd read people talking about him in another forum and he sounded to me like a cold-hearted atheist.
Welcome to the prejudice that faces atheists in our society. Everybody who's an atheist has been called "cold-hearted", and of course there's my favorite old saw, "fundamentalist atheist", a moniker that you can earn simply for telling someone that you're an atheist.
Judging from the title, this book is going to paint a pretty bleak picture.
I didn't find anything bleak at all about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 3:15 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 107 of 172 (424610)
09-27-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
09-27-2007 3:54 PM


Slight detour into Dawkins book
Dawkins never addresses the arguments of religion but instead sets up his own strawmen before mowing them down.
I've seen people regularly assert that Dawkins is "arguing against strawmen", but I've actually seen religious figures legitimately and seriously deliver the arguments that he demolishes in his book.
Indeed, he cites extensive religious writing on the subject, often quoting the argument in the writer's own words. In what sense, Percy, is he arguing against strawmen when these are the exact arguments that, 90% of the time, are being offered to support the existence of God?
What evidence for the existence of God does Dawkins ignore, in your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 09-27-2007 3:54 PM Percy has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 108 of 172 (424657)
09-27-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 11:24 AM


Re: food for thought
quote:
That's fascinating. It really does show that some people set aside skepticism readily.
It does more than that. Way more.
It shows that people will continue to believe irrational, false beliefs no matter what. That goes way beyond skepticism and arrives at self-delusion. They believe something simply out of preference, in spite of the evidence.
It also probably indicates that a large proportion of a given group is very likely to fall prey to this error in thinking.
And again, given the results of the study, how likely do you think it is that someone who never looks for or is never presented with the true and accurate cause of events will budge from their irrational belief? Clearly, the study indicates that most people will not budge from their irrational belief, just as you are not budging from yours.
quote:
However, I see a huge body of anecdotal evidence that says that poltergeist events truly do happen.
So. Effing. What.
I must say that your repetition of "but look at all the anecdotal evidence!" as if it actually carries any weight whatsoever in this discussion with anybody other than you is becoming tiresome.
quote:
I don't think it's just cultural baggage or tradition, and I don't think that every single one of those people were mistaken.
We understand, quite thoroughly, that you think this.
What you haven't done is given any reason whatsoever for anybody to share your seemingly religious view on this matter.
quote:
I ask again, how were my husband and his family mistaken about the milk bottles? It's easy to shrug and say, "Well they must have been."
No, I didn't say "they must have been mistaken."
I asked you if that could be possible, and apparently you don't think so. Must be a right pain to live with someone who is rarely, if ever, mistaken about things.
What I did say is that they don't know how the bottles got on the floor, and neither do I. Your gigantic leap to "ghostsdidit" is unwarranted in the extreme. I mean, how do you know that fairies, or demons, or elves, or sprites, or nymphs, or dryads, or angels, or the Devil, or God didn't move the bottles?
quote:
I don't think that's the case, not for events that repeatedly happened and were witnessed by 3 different people on different occasions.
Wait, "witnessed"? I thought the bottles were in another room and they just heard them land on the floor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 11:24 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 109 of 172 (424658)
09-27-2007 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 11:37 AM


Re: Investigating the poltergeist
quote:
I'm not sure how to answer this. As an adult I've read a number of accounts of how the myth started in different countries, and the different traditions in those countries.
As have I, only about ghosts.
quote:
The large body of anecdotal evidence that he does exist, and has possibly even been seen, comes from little children. And it's easy to see what you are getting at here: that children believe in all kinds of weird and wonderful things until they are old enough to learn how the world really works and how to employ skepticism.
That's one interpretation, but it wasn't actually my intent to characterize belief in ghosts as childish.
My intent was to have you go through the exercise of answering the question you asked of me, which you still haven't done.
The reason I chose Santa Claus is because both he and poltergeists are culturally-based, supernatural entities.
If you aren't sure how to answer it, then perhaps you might now understand that it is an unreasonable question to ask of anyone else reagrading poltergeists. It is jumping the gun, really, except that we know an awful lot more about the "qualities" of Santa Claus compared to poltergeists, such that we could at least make a list of what we'd like him to demonstrate, if we could ever get him to meet with us.
quote:
Plenty of adults who do not believe in magic, fairies or Santa Claus have reported experiences with ghosts or poltergeists.
So, are you saying that you would believe that Santa Claus really, truly exists if adults started to report experiences with him?
quote:
I don't see why it can't be possible that some of them, at least, have experienced something genuinely out of the ordinary.
I am sure that many, perhaps most people who report such things have experienced something genuinely out of the ordinary. "Out of the ordinary" does not equal "supernatural", however.
quote:
I do not think it is childish or gullible to consider that some of it might be true, given the bulk of anecdotal evidence and the similarity of some of the reports down the centuries.
Your reliance upon anecdotal evidence in these discussions, even after many of us have painstakingly and patiently explained to you why such evidence is largely useless, is very telling. It tells me that you are having a hard time accepting just how worthless anecdotal evidence really is, and I also think that you understand that if your anecdoes are all taken away, you have nothing to stand on. Nevertheless, I like you, so I'll try again.
source
Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.
If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve.
quote:
I do accept that when I'm older and have lived a little more, it's possible I will change my mind about this. I am not ready to do that right now.
Age has little to do with it. Understanding of human psychology and our remarkable ability to fool ourselves does, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 11:37 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 172 (424659)
09-27-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 4:39 PM


quote:
I do choose to believe that some of the anecdotal evidence for ghosts is probably true.
Why?
quote:
Everyone who has ever reported a ghost, all over the world, for thousands of years, is . . . wrong?
Sure. Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 4:39 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 111 of 172 (424660)
09-27-2007 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kitsune
09-25-2007 2:37 AM


Re: Hardcore skepticism
LindaLou writes:
Is anyone actually interested in watching the vid that I linked to, and then making comments which are more educated about the Enfield case?
I watched your video, and enjoyed it. A couple of technical points.
The two most spectacular examples of moving objects were the sliding of a heavy chest of draws across the floor, and the ripping out of a gas fire. On both occasions, unfortunately, only the mother and daughters were present. With the chest of draws, we have to take their word for it, but the gas fire was actually ripped of the wall by someone or something.
I noticed the guy who had kept it emphasizing its weight (60lbs) and saying that he couldn't have lifted it. It was almost as if he wanted to convince himself that the woman and two girls couldn't possibly have removed it from the wall.
Most men (and many if not most women) can lift 60lbs. The mother and daughters could certainly have prized it off the wall, and used its weight to bend and break the pipe.
However, I'm not suggesting that it was necessarily all a big fraud on their part. The younger daughter showed a lot of symptoms common in these cases. She was the "poltergeist". She did get her sister to help, we know, with small tricks, and may've persuaded the mother to help with the story of the chest of draws and physically with the gas fire.
The mother might help if she realized that press attention might mean money, but also if she was convinced that there was a poltergeist, was frightened, and thought a bit of exaggeration would help bring attention to their plight.
All three of the family may well've believed in the poltergeist in some way, depending on the mental state of the youngest daughter, but it's just as likely that they were playing a big trick. Their apparent simplicity helped, but the young one wasn't simple.
They were lucky that the policewoman didn't look for a floor coloured piece of cotton tied to the chair leg and one of the girls' legs, I think, and that she thought the chair had actually lifted 1/2 an inch off the floor, rather than just rocking, or two legs lifting.
The other big break was that the Daily Mirror reporters didn't keep an eye on both girls at the same time when they were having lego bricks wrist flicked at them. The poltergeist was wise not to try the same trick again!
The problem with the main investigators is that they were all people who wanted to believe in the spiritual world. So when the girls were caught on tape playing tricks, they were given the benefit of the doubt, as with the 60lb "too heavy" gas fire (which I could lift with one arm).
The thing to do in these cases is to send the nators and crashfrogs of this world in to investigate. If they come out believing in poltergeists, then there probably really is one! That's what skeptics are useful for, so don't knock us!
The mental state of the youngest girl is the real mystery, and she could well've believed herself to be possessed, and felt possessed, including some of the physical sensations she described, while playing tricks at the same time. She may've been temporarily mad, and madness is very confusing to other people.
Someone making up the ghost and believing in it at the same time would confuse others. If she was genuinely frightened, it would be more convincing than an act, and to sane people, playing tricks and believing something else is responsible for them just doesn't make sense.
I'm not claiming that there's nothing mysterious in this universe. I think it's very mysterious, and that we don't even really know what it is. It's a mistake to think that the scientific view is that we're near to knowing pretty much everything about ourselves and our environment. Some think we've only just dipped our toes in the ocean of potential knowledge, and they may be right.
I wouldn't automatically call the idea that the human brain might be able to move objects magical or supernatural. If it's ever shown that it can, I would just see it as an unexplained natural phenomenon.
I see nothing in the video to indicate the supernatural. As for old Bill, some of the neighbours may well've known him, and told the family the story of his death. "Poor old soul, he went blind he did, then he died sitting in his chair just where you're sitting now. Hemorrhage, it was."
I think you said something in another post on this thread about not disbelieving in poltergeists until they have been disproven. Like unicorns, Gods and fairies, their absence can never be proven, obviously, as no-one can prove a negative, but if people want them to be taken seriously, then the onus is really on those people to present evidence for them.
Once again, I enjoyed the video, and it's an interesting story. Thanks for the link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kitsune, posted 09-25-2007 2:37 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 112 of 172 (424663)
09-28-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 4:43 AM


Re: Hardcore skepticism
No, let's have an actual analogy:
Husband: The grass needs cutting, dear. Would you mind doing that this afternoon?
Wife: Grass? We don't have any grass. The front yard is Xeroscaped and the back yard has a pool with a side garden.
H: I saw it just now. It's getting pretty long.
W: You "saw" it? What on earth did you see? Do you mean the garden needs weeding?
H: Why don't you go outside and see for yourself?
W: Sure. [Goes out front.] Honey, it's still a bunch of rocks with the palm bushes we had planted. [Goes out back.] And we still have a pool. The garden seems fine, though we might want to pick the zucchini soon. Where is this grass you're talking of?
H: What will the neighbors think if we don't keep our grass cut?
W: Sweetie, what grass?! There isn't any grass out here. Show me where the grass is.
H: Our garden looks terrible! I can hardly walk out there!
W: Darling, what are you talking about? Here. [Takes husband out front. Picks up landscaping rock.] This isn't grass. It's a rock. There isn't any grass out here. [Takes husband out back. Pushes him into the pool.] And here, there isn't any grass out here, either. And there isn't any grass here in the vegetable patch, either.
H: What do I have to do, take a photo for you?
W: If you think it'll help, let me take it for you. [Takes out digital camera and takes picture of husband climbing out of pool.] See? No grass. Where is this grass?
H: How about this then: Cut the god damned grass today or I'm filing for divorce.
W: What? Honey, we don't even have a lawn mower. We don't have a lawn mower because we don't have any grass.
Now you tell us, LindaLou, is there a reasonable case for there being grass?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 4:43 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 113 of 172 (424666)
09-28-2007 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 5:20 AM


Re: Investigating the poltergeist
LindaLou writes:
quote:
You won't accept personal testimony and I can see why; the person may be telling the truth about what they think they saw, but may be misinterpreting the event.
See, now you're ascribing nefarious motives to those who ask for better evidence. First, there is no automatic dismissal of personal testimony. It is simply that personal testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is because there are absolutely no controls and we know from long experience that human memory is notorious for providing poor descriptions of what happened.
There's an exhibit at the science museum here regarding perception and there's a wonderful example of how human perception is terrible, especially when it starts to focus on things. They have a video monitor. It's a short film of some kids bouncing a basketball around. You are told to focus on the ball to see where it goes. After a while, the film stops and you are asked, "Did you notice anything unusual?" And, of course, you didn't. The ball never vanished, none of the kids did any real fancy tricks. In fact, they don't look like they're that good of players...it's taxing their limits of coordination just to keep themselves and the ball in motion.
But sure enough, something very unusual happened. Right in the middle of all this, a guy in a gorilla suit wandered into the shot, did the watusi in the middle of everybody, and walked off. Right there, plain as day, absolutely no way anybody could have possibly missed it...
...except you were too busy looking at the ball to notice.
That's why personal testimony isn't trusted. It's great for getting a question asked, but it's lousy for actually answering it. You have to put controls in. You have to have somebody who is specifically looking for things that can go wrong, not paying attention to the thing you think you're supposed to be looking for but rather the thing you're not.
Why is it whenever we bring in the big guns, separate the people who have a vested interest in their story being true from the location in which it's supposed to happen, isolate them from any gadgetry they might use, put in controls to ensure they aren't using outside information, etc., the "haunting" suddenly goes away?
quote:
So if ghosts, poltergeists or whatever, really did exist -- we'll say hypothetically here -- what kind of proof would be acceptable to you?
Something tangible taken under controlled conditions. Ghosts are supposed to move things, right? So here's a thought. Let me bring the object. We'll remove all of the stuff that's currently there, have an independent set of investigators sweep the room so that we know exactly what is there and what isn't, and make sure that the people who have been insisting that stuff has been flying around are nowhere near. Make sure there's at least one professional magician present who knows about the various ways people can be fooled in order to check on things.
And then, if it moves of its own accord, we've got something to consider.
quote:
Ghosts seem to haunt particular places. How do you get one into a lab?
Labs can be moved. There's no reason that we can't do this in a particular spot.
quote:
What would you do in a poltergeist case? A poltergeist is often centered around a person, called the focus.
And you really don't see the conflict of interest here?
This is where the professional magician comes in. We've seen all of these things happen before by those who claim to be psychic. When we bring in a professional magician to ensure that the "focus" has no gimmicks, suddenly those impressive powers vanish.
Isolate the "focus," make sure none of the other people connected to the focus is anywhere near, don't let the "focus" know what is being examined, and that's a start.
quote:
Also, what do you make of the pattern that poltergeist cases show?
The same thing we see regarding the "pattern" of aliens. The system always seems to follow the fads and trends of society. Isn't it interesting, for example, that alien abduction never happened until the advent of science fiction? Right when society started having aliens enter the cultural landscape, people started saying they had been kidnapped. And isn't it interesting that the visions of aliens seem to follow popularizations of what the "experts" say alien abductors are supposed to be? Isn't it interesting, for example, that these aliens are so humanoid in appearance? Oh, they're a bit off the norm, yes, but isn't it interesting that the aliens most commonly seen are bipedal, have two arms in a shoulder/elbow/wrist format, head atop a neck, two eyes, nose with two nostrils (no matter how flattened), single mouth slit oriented horizontally, two ears placed laterally, etc.
So, for example, why is it we don't really hear about electrical effects of poltergeists until after the advent of electricity as a commonplace feature in homes? Why did we never hear about strange things happening to computers until after they became commonplace in the cultural landscape? It isn't like computers didn't exist before then.
What I make of the "pattern" is that people are very aware of what a "poltergeist" is supposed to do and seem to follow the script very well. As new cultural icons enter, the script adapts but always trailing, never leading.
quote:
How is it that people from different periods in time, different walks of life, different countries, all report similar things?
Because there's a script that a poltergeist is supposed to follow. It'd be more significant if a poltergeist ever did something new. If the explanation is that poltergeists are stuck, then that would seem to indicate that a "poltergeist" isn't any sort of conscious phenomenon at all but is rather a purely physical phenomenon. And if it's physical, then that makes it that much easier to investigate because there is no reason why it should suddenly stop happening just because we're looking at it.
So why does it always vanish as soon as we bring in the big guns?
quote:
Would anyone like me to give more details from the "Poltergeist Phenomenon" book?
Quoting a flawed investigation doesn't make it any better. Lots and lots of nonsense is still nonsense.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 5:20 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 114 of 172 (424669)
09-28-2007 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Kitsune
09-26-2007 8:50 AM


Re: Hardcore skepticism
LindaLou writes:
quote:
My question is, though, when do you decide to employ your skepticism; and then, how much, if it comes in degrees?
You employ it always and at full strength. No, this doesn't mean you become an obdurate jerk, never taking anybody at their word. Instead, it means you apply all of your knowledge to the situation.
If your partner comes in and says that the grass needs mowing, then whether or not you believe it depends upon what else you know. If you had just mown it this morning, then you're not really going to believe that it needs to be mown again, now are you? If it's been a week since the last time you knew it was mown and if you're pretty sure it's still the height of growing season, then you're going to think that's a reasonable response. After all, grass grows and it can grow significantly in a week.
That's what skepticism is. It isn't the automatic gainsaying of any and all claims. It's the application of knowledge to a situation and not jumping to outrageous conclusions when more mundane ones are available.
As crash noted: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
quote:
So at what point do you decide that you aren't going to believe someone until you have verifiable proof?
At the point that the claim contradicts what is known.
At one point, we lived at a place that had a peach tree in the backyard. My father would tell me to go out and pick up the peaches that had fallen on the ground. And I would. But then he'd come by later and say, "I thought I told you to pick up the peaches." And I would tell him that I had. "But there are still peaches on the ground." Yes, that may be true, but how much time has elapsed between the first time you asked and now? Might it not have occurred to you that some more peaches had fallen? After all, there were a dozen or so this morning when you first asked and there's only three or so now. Do you think I would have deliberately left them behind? If you looked in the kitchen, you'd notice that there are some peaches in the fruit bowl. Where do you think they came from?
All he had seen was peaches on the ground. There was more information to be had, however. Some of it he should have figured out on his own (the time difference, the fact that there was a different number of peaches on the ground). Some of it would have required investigation (that there were new peaches in the house). But at the time he was haranguing me again, the only piece of information he had in his head was, "There are peaches on the ground." Therefore, he greeted my contradiction with skepticism: If I had picked them up, there wouldn't be any peaches on the ground. Since my claim is running counter to what he knew, he was skeptical.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Kitsune, posted 09-26-2007 8:50 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 115 of 172 (424675)
09-28-2007 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Kitsune
09-27-2007 4:39 PM


LindaLou writes:
quote:
This family is down-to-earth and honest. I have known all of them as genuine, truthful people, and I can't see any possible reason why any of them would be lying about this.
Look at how much you're eating it up. Why wouldn't they play a prank on you?
That doesn't make them "dishonest." That doesn't make them bad people. It simply means that they're playing a joke.
I'm not saying that they are. I'm simply pointing out that your insistence that "They would never do that" isn't sufficient. People do such things all the time.
quote:
How could all 3 people have been mistaken?
Because they're all in on it. That is a possibility.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Kitsune, posted 09-27-2007 4:39 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 4:59 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 116 of 172 (424685)
09-28-2007 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rrhain
09-28-2007 3:20 AM


Look at how much you're eating it up. Why wouldn't they play a prank on you?
That doesn't make them "dishonest." That doesn't make them bad people. It simply means that they're playing a joke.
I've known all of them for 13 years. I pride myself on being a good judge of character. None of them have the sort of personality that would drive them to do this. Their sense of humour is not stimulated by playing jokes on people. My sister-in-law is a professor of geography and she's one of the last people you'd expect to want to tell ANYONE about such an experience. And I simply know that my husband is not lying to me. Not from a scientific point of view, but a psychological one. So if what he described to me is what he really experienced, something strange really did happen.
How the heck do you put text in italics here BTW??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2007 3:20 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by AdminModulous, posted 09-28-2007 5:02 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 118 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 5:38 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2007 6:33 AM Kitsune has replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 117 of 172 (424687)
09-28-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Kitsune
09-28-2007 4:59 AM


How the heck do you put text in italics here BTW??
You can use the normal html code, or use the dBcode. Look to the left of your message window when you are typing.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 4:59 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 5:43 AM AdminModulous has not replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 118 of 172 (424690)
09-28-2007 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Kitsune
09-28-2007 4:59 AM


I would find it difficult to reply to all of the messages here individually, but I'm getting one message from them all: that if people don't employ skepticism, they are vulnerable to being deceived and deluded.
I agree with that. I've got nothing against skeptics. I admired the way people in this forum handle creationist claims when I first started reading here. (I'd love to read about it some more but I seem to be spending all my time talking in the Coffee House right now LOL.) What took me by surprise was seeing how that skepticism is applied to many other aspects of life as well. I'm still digesting this.
I enjoyed watching the vid of the magicians. Even though I knew they were playing tricks, my mouth was hanging open because they were so good. I think I can honestly say, though, that I would never ascribe psychic powers as the explanation for such shenanigans. My own skepticism bar is much higher than that. If people really do think that a good magician is psychic, that's pretty scary. but I suppose it explains why tabloid newspapers sell.
Nator, you especially seem keen to convince me that I'm banging my head against the wall. You're metaphorically trying to do it for me in fact. And yes, I can be very stubborn. I also hope that I have the sense to let go of the stubbornness when it becomes clear that it's counterproductive.
I keep wondering what would happen if I decided that the best way forward is to choose to be more rigidly skeptical. Why should I let myself play the fool? Let's say I decide there's no evidence of anything spiritual, transcendent or supernatural and so decide just to forget about all that, because it clouds my judgement. I should feel that I'm free, that I can see clearly, and that I can appreciate the amazing universe for what it truly is, yes?
What I find is that the very thought of this makes me feel upset and resistant. I don't want to believe that reality is only what we experience through our senses, and what we can learn through scientific methods as they are currently understood and employed. I've had a mystic inclination all my life. When I was young I wanted to be a nun. Since I stopped being Catholic, I've never really stopped searching for some deeper spirituality that transcends religion. It's what I need to do to feel fulfilled. Dismissing all of this would, I seriously believe, make me feel very depressed.
This is why I asked earlier if a thread here has ever discussed the need for spirituality as something that possibly evolved; and if so, why. That need is definitely there within me, and I am not a happy person when I ignore it. There's no point in being a hardcore skeptic if it means I'm also going to be depressed all the time.
Having said that, please keep in mind the following: that I think skepticism is important, and in most cases necessary. But that maybe it doesn't always lead to the truth in every case, especially if we're talking about something spiritual. I also am not trying to make a case for a poltergeist being the spirit of a dead person. I am not even inclined to believe that we have a soul that goes into an afterlife carrying the characteristics of our personality. I think it more likely that the energy from our being joins the life energy of the universe in some way.
I think that a poltergeist is possibly a form of energy that comes from one person or a group of people. It is created unconsciously in some way. It can take on some of the characteristics of personality; but being an unconscious creation from someone who is possibly using it to express frustration or a need for attention, it is childish and spiteful -- like an extension of the id. I prefer this explanation to the one that says it's the spirit of a dead person.
I also think that many ghosts are like the fading photographs of times and events past, and are no more conscious or living than a photograph. Somehow these people, at that point in time, have been imprinted onto the physical world in a way we don't understand, and a sensitive person might be able to see them. I enjoy reading the story about the Roman soldiers seen in the Treasurer's House in York. A young man saw them walking through the cellar one night while he was sleeping there. Curiously, their feet and the horses' hooves seemed to be sunk into the ground, so that all you could see were their knees and above. It was only later on, during excavations in the cellar, that archaeologists discovered the remains of a Roman road in the same place where the ghosts had been seen.
All anecdotal, yes. It's clear to me that anecdotes aren't scientific. And if I were a scientist doing research, I wouldn't dream of considering them as evidence for anything. However, sometimes I can't see the harm in considering them as possibilities; I am not a scientist, I'm not submitting evidence to be published in a journal. My interest in poltergeists is not going to cause me to fork out any money to unscrupulous people, or to harm anyone else, or to claim that all of the textbooks are wrong.
Not to cast aspersions on Dawkins, by the way, but I started watching one of those video links and he said that the people gathering for a candle-lit ceremony were on a slippery slope to becoming the sort of religious fanatics who encourage someone to murder themselves and others in the name of a god. This is deeply insulting to all the peaceful religious people I ever knew. I think I'm going to go with Percy's strawman comments there and decide it's all rather too extreme for me to stomach, though no doubt he's got some good points to make.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 4:59 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 09-28-2007 7:25 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 123 by nator, posted 09-28-2007 7:52 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 127 by Modulous, posted 09-28-2007 12:08 PM Kitsune has replied

  
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 119 of 172 (424692)
09-28-2007 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by AdminModulous
09-28-2007 5:02 AM


Oh wow! I never paid any attention to those. Too busy thinking about what to write LOL. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by AdminModulous, posted 09-28-2007 5:02 AM AdminModulous has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 172 (424700)
09-28-2007 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Kitsune
09-28-2007 4:59 AM


LindaLou responds to me:
quote:
I've known all of them for 13 years. I pride myself on being a good judge of character.
Two things:
First, everyone prides themselves on being "a good judge of character," and yet everybody is shocked that the next door neighbor was a homicidal maniac.
Second, what does "good judge of character" have to do with anything? Like I directly said: This doesn't make them "dishonest." This doesn't make them bad people. It simply means they're playing a joke.
Yes, I'm sure you think they're being sincere. And I am hardly insisting upon it. I am simply pointing out that there is a possibility that explains it all without impugning malice or mental defect. They know that you have this quirk in your personality so they're playing along.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 4:59 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Kitsune, posted 09-28-2007 6:38 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024