Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
How is an investigation into paranormal activity that assumes paranormal activity can't happen NOT biased?
Proof of the supernatural
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
How is an investigation into paranormal activity that assumes paranormal activity can't happen NOT biased?
This has already been explained to you... get the proton pack out of your ear and listen:
In science, one does not assume something to be either true OR untrue, in order to avoid bias.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You're kidding me aren't you? You can't see the quoted statement at the top of the paragraph? Tip: instead of trying so hard to find excuses to infract me and so ban me, why don't you stick to the debate. Your starting to screw up alot.Uh... what first paragraph?
Last edited:
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Wrong. I explained it to you:
"In other words, we are going to research the possibility of paranormal phenomena, but we assume it doesn't exist. Hence all evidence for the paranormal will either be attributed to mundane causes, or just filed under the category "unexplained", since we "know" paranormal phenomena don't exist."
Hm... no, I don't see what you said:
My question to you was - is the second part of that statement HIS WORDS or YOUR WORDS.
You said to me:
Thus, I can only assume that YOU are INTENTIONALLY AND DISHONESTLY trying to twist his words to suit your needs.
Hence, intellectual dishonesty.
Again, where is this quote coming from?
Of course you will. Science looks at the evidence to find answers. People with a belief already have the answer and look for evidence to support that answer. You will accept any evidence no matter how flimsy that supports your belief and reject any evidence no matter how solid that doesn't support your belief.
That is why these threads are in the fringe sections.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
The statement I made after the quote and it's url is MY statement. This should be obvious to anyone. It's not in quotes. Why are you wasting my time?
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
And that's why you spend so much time trying to discredit the evidence posted here. Because the evidence pokes holes in your supposed "scientific" universe.
So you admit to twisting what he said to suit your interests... you then obfuscate the issue by feigning (I dearly hope you were simply feigning, anyway) ignorance, and then, when the fact of the matter is revealed, you post ANOTHER quote,
Playing it off like you are citing it from somewhere else...
Again, this is intellectual dishonesty at its finest...
Meanwhile, you simply ignore the evidence you don't like because it not only "pokes holes in your supposed "paranormal" universe", it shatters it entirely...
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
How is making a statement after an obviously quoted statement trying to "pull something off."? I do it all the time. Other people do it too. You are now just making up shit about me to discredit me. You are hereby ignored.
Simple - you first quote you were unclear (especially due to the lack of a proper citation).
When asked for clarification to BOTH PARTS of the post, you refused, and instead simply edited the post.
You then made ANOTHER post in quotes after stating:
Thus, you are trying to pass off your own words as quotes from other sources (again, without citation). Not to mention that even that first part is NOT a quote from Richard Wiseman himself...
When you are unable to defend your untenable position against scrutiny, you resort to claiming you will just ignore the person.
Your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. This charade has gone on long enough.
Science does not assume that. They would just have a healthy skepticism, since nothing like that has been shown before.
Skepticism - perhaps the sole thing that separates the gullible from the intellectual.
Why on Earth would you think that if you weren't paranoid or stupid?
Science would LOVE to have conclusive impossible-to-ignore evidence of things like psychics, aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, Loch Ness monsters, and so on.
It would be like the discovery of DNA, or relativity, or electricity, and so on. Just imagne the breakthroughs that would be made in fields such as palentology, xenobiology, neuroscience, and everything else.
It would open up a whole new area of the Universe to learn everything about, fields of study to gain a deeper understanding of how reality works. Science really, really, really, wants to know more about how reality and the Universe works.
Forget Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Darwin and all of those guys - the person who proves the existence of life after death will become a million times more famous!
The idea that science doesn't want to know things is ridiculous.
brokenbutnotbeat
Registered Member
well I don't always feel that way, I think that science worked really hard to get to the point where it is at now, scientists may not want to find something that discredits all their previous work. that would be like admitting that science was wrong before.
brokenbutnotbeat
Registered Member
i must admit that a lot of things I'm reading about is new, but you must understand, it is hard for me to believe that I just got lucky with the paranormal, how everything worked out for me after I took spiritual help.
How, pray tell, would proof that ghosts/the loch ness monster/bigfoot/et al exist be "admitting that science was wrong"?
The existance of ghosts or aliens wouldn't change anything about how gravity works, nor would it alter our understanding of mineralogy, electronics, etc... or, well, really, much of anything. it'd be its own brand new field to study...
That is not how science works. The person who finds an error in Einsteins work becomes famous. When Einstein came up with a new theory of gravity, that did not mean that Newton was wrong it just meant that Eistein had new insights into how the universe works and a BETTER theory.
Moderator Note -
The warning levied against Magical Realist has been redacted after some discussion with the moderation team - I was overly hasty in this instance (admittedly in part because of the pattern of ignoring contradictory evidence is wearing on me, and admittedly in part because of stress I am personally under with regards to the job I am aiming for) and it has been shown to me where I was incorrect in issuing it.
Magical Realist - for that, you have my apologies.
The warning levied against Magical Realist has been redacted after some discussion with the moderation team - I was overly hasty in this instance (admittedly in part because of the pattern of ignoring contradictory evidence is wearing on me, and admittedly in part because of stress I am personally under with regards to the job I am aiming for) and it has been shown to me where I was incorrect in issuing it.
Magical Realist - for that, you have my apologies.
- Status