Poltergeists!

If it wasn't for the "hard-line skepticism", that info would never have been developed. If you find a place on the Internet where you can have your cake and eat it too, please let us know.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You can take a creationist belief like "the geological column was laid down by the worldwide Biblical flood, which occurred a few thousband years ago," and show it to be false using a large number of facts and observations. Presumably the creationist then has to accept the truth of the facts, or declare all of science to be a big conspiracy.The facts aren't always as clear-cut as this when you start looking at other areas. If the mainstream opinion in those areas happens to be wrong, then the foundation on which the skeptics are basing their evidence is wrong, and presumably they will be the last ones to question it until it crumbles underneath them.You must draw a line somewhere yourself or else you would be an atheist, yes?

That's just what people have been trying to tell you, though: the facts are clear-cut. The fact is that there aren't enough facts about poltergeists to conclude that poltergeists exist - just like two or three hundred years ago there weren't enough facts about geology to determine the true age of the earth.The correct approach is to gather more facts (not substituting anecdote for fact) and not jump to a conclusion before you have enough facts to do so. Spoken like a creationist. A skeptic is the first to question his/her own conclusions, not the last. What's wrong with being an atheist? Edited by Ringo, : Splleing.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I wasn't happy with what I said in my last post but you beat me here before I could edit it. I think I must have sounded ridiculously apocryphal. What I was mainly thinking of was the pasting I've been getting from hardline skeptics in the holistic medicine thread. The basis for their evidence is the faith in mainstream medicine, and clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals. I think there is good evidence that that particular system is flawed, and thus any well-reasoned skeptical arguments based on it are also flawed.As for poltergeists, I accept that I can't logically defend my belief. But I do believe that my husband and sister-in-law are not only telling me what they believe to be the truth about what they saw, but the actual truth about what they saw. It's difficult to think of how my sister-in-law could be mistaken about a glass moving across the counter towards her. The very mundane-seeming nature of such an event, as opposed to levitation or a "voice," makes it all the more peculiar in my eyes. Nothing. My husband is an atheist. I'm an agnostic. I would rather say "We don't know" than "Until I see evidence to convince me otherwise, I will believe that (x) is false." Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Actually, that's a good thing, and let me explain why.Creationists will often accuse scientists of just making things up. CTD is doing it right now in other threads (for example, see Message 245). You do something similar when you cast accusations at the traditional medical community.But scientists can't just make things up, because if they did they'd be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny, criticism and ridicule you're experiencing now. That's why they insure that their claims are rigorously supported by real world evidence gathered through experiment and/or observation.I'm not actually in favor of the ridicule, but it's hard to criticize it because you're being incredibly persistent with some astoundingly weak and thoroughly rebutted arguments. Collecting laypeople's opinions and experiences is a known poor way of establishing anything. We grant that mundane claims like "The grass needs mowing" do not normally require scientific validation, but contrariwise a collection of anecdotes aren't really going to tell you much about the effect of low pH on your lawn.Even worse is justifying paranormal beliefs because you find the world a less interesting place if they aren't real. Just imagine how interesting the world would be if dragons were real! How ridiculous are you going to get in the service of making the world seem a more interesting place?Ironically, the better you understand the actual nature of the real world the more fascinating a place it becomes, though attaining that understanding is hard work for most people. Those familiar with science can confirm how truly more wondrous a place the universe becomes the more you know about it, because there are true mysteries out there, and as we learn more we only find deeper and more fascinating mysteries. So hopefully you can see not just how poor an argument against science it is to accuse it of taking away mysteries, but even misguided.I'm not sure if this helps you understand the inquiring nature of science, but Isaac Asimov once said, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'"In case it wasn't clear before, EvC Forum is a science site dedicated to examining creationism's claim to be legitimate science, but obviously we're more than willing to focus on other areas of flim-flammery.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

It's good to be skeptical of mainstream medicine - but you need clinical studies in peer-reviewed journals to back up your skepticism.The peer-review system is self-correcting. Do you have a problem with the principle of peer-review or the executuon? There's no difference between "what they believe to be the truth about what they saw" and "the actual truth about what they saw".They told you what they perceived. Their perception, like everybody's, is unreliable. Again, there's no real difference there.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The problem is what you are writing off as flim-flammery. What arguments of mine are you referring to as being thoroughly rebutted? Here in this topic, yes, if you are a skeptic. In the holistic medicine topic, I don't agree. And as I said, clinical studies can be flawed. Were you aware that a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, wrote a book called The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It? Richard Smith, ex-editor of the BMJ, wrote a book called The Trouble With Medical Journals. They seem to think the system is flawed too. You will not know what the criticisms are if you do not look for them. Is this what you would say to my sister-in-law? She has been a professor of geology for over 20 years and she is passionate about her work. She's the one telling me she saw a glass move toward her when there was no one else around. She also told me that two dressers upstairs switched places. Oh, and she also takes vitamin C. She is a respected scientist but she finds room for these things in her worldview without any trouble.One of the things I love most is hearing about new scientific discoveries. I like reading about fossils that have bee found, and about distant planets orbiting other stars. I wish we could learn more about poltergeist phenomena too; I believe it is just something else waiting to be scientifically discovered and studied.

"Opening up BMJ Peer Review: A Beginning that should Lead to Complete Transparency" by Richard SmithOpening up BMJ peer review | The BMJ

What method would be less "slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, prone to bias, easily abused, poor at detecting gross defects, and almost useless for detecting fraud" than peer-review? Unquestioning belief in people's perceptions?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I am comfortable calling myself "misguided" about my experiences with poltergeists, ouija boards, and similar topics. I have had experiences that I cannot explain; moving objects, spirits in the mirror, ouija boards knowing things - all of my experiences feel completely real. I am however skeptical of all of it. I cannot discount the fact that my desire to have these experiences made them happen, in my head.All memories are faulty. No two people that witness an event will recall it in the same way. What my mind tells me was a ghost trying to scare the hell out of me was very likely my mind... scaring the hell out of me. Sure I sound crazy, perhaps I am - but my skepticism has become a magical barrier to the unknown, I havent seen a ghost since. On the rare occation where I sit around the fire telling ghost stories I now find myself saying "I can't explain it, but I don't believe it has anything to do with spirits".Did I see spirits, ghosts and goblins? I don't know - but given that no supporting evidence has ever come up, I am much more comfortable believing I was misguided. (crazy, delusional, open to peer pressure, hoping for enlightenment, altering my memories, etc)

If you're asking me, then I don't know.Smith wants to make review a process between the authors and a global audience on the internet.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

(While we're at it, shall we run our elections that way too?)I can see the value in exposing scientific work to a wider spectrum of qualified reviewers - but one of the qualifications is skepticism. The whole idea of review is to point out where the research might have gone wrong. How can that happen if we begin by assuming that the observers couldn't have been mistaken?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

When someone writes a book called The Truth about the Scientific Method: How Scientists Deceive You and What to Do About It then you let us know, okay? If it really isn't true that scientific knowledge makes the universe seem even more wondrous it won't be because of anything having to do with your sister-in-law. If you think my argument has flaws then I suggest you focus on those. Me too, and all the more so because since they have scientific support in the form of observations and experiment they're probably actually true.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

......And don't expect it to happen. That's not how the supernatural works. You have to be tuned/connected some how with airwaves to get media reception through electronics. In a way that's how the supernatural works. Though I've read of and been told about levitation, etc in such places as spiritualist gatherings I've never been present or tuned into any of this stuff, but I am tuned in to the Holy Spirit of Jehovah God and several times in my life I've had supernatural things happen to me. For example I have experienced waves ripple through my body on one occasion, had an instant healing on another and when I was in the Air Force a GI friend went to a church meeting with me who never had become a Christian via the spiritual birth, i.e. receiving the Jesus as lord and savior. In the meeting he became so spiritually affected by conviction that he began to shake violently. He then grabbed hold of the pew in front of him to stablize himself. That didn't work so he ran out of the church. He did eventually receive Christ and became a Christian.I can't document this of course but my point is that supernatural entities are likely to limit their powers to those who become possessed by them or submit to their power/authority. Of course the Bible bears all this out as well relative to both good and evil powers.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

If you don't know how radios work, it's probably not a good idea to use them as metaphors.Radios tune into radio waves by means of antennae; what organ, specifically, tunes humans into the spiritual ether? There's nothing supernatural about getting the shakes or recovering from an illness.Moreover, if what you say is true - given the vast, dangerous powers at work in the supernatural realm, staying untuned to that realm through skepticism seems to be the safest course of action. Why wouldn't it? If the ghosts and goblins can only get you if you believe in them?