Where are you in the whole Paranormal Debate?

[Canute]

I'm afraid I couldn't answer the poll. As far as I'm concerned things happen or they dont. If they happen they aren't paranormal. If they don't happen then they are, but then they don't exist so it doesn't matter.

If the question is whether there are things that happen that are inexplicable by 'normal' science then I'm a true believer.

 

[candy]

I always assumed that paranormal meant outside the norms as defined by science not outside reality. There is alot that does not fit with scientific theory. Relativity and quantum have never been successfully intergrated yet they are both true some of the time.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I answered second from the top.
I was just thinking of ufo's too for some reason.
I flat out don't believe in ghosts at all, cryptozoology? I believe in zoology, there almost certainly are animal species that are not yet known, but I don't feel that this fact warrants a supernatural "category", nor do ancient civilisations unless I'm missing something?

I'm a skeptical believer in ufo's, I go on a case by case basis, I could count on one hand the cases which i believe are true.
I'm not a hardcore skeptic like many people are, I'm not the kind that is a skeptic just for the sake of being a skeptic.
As I said i go case by case and I have come accross some cases that are overwhelming and have practically forced me to believe that alien aircraft has indeed visited earth.
I don't need "proof" in the true sense of the word, I need powerful overwhelming indications that put me in the position where not believing would require ignoring common sense.
I've gotten those indications so I now believe, or more accurately know, that at least one species from another planet has visited earth.
It is either that or there is a huge expensive conspiracy to make people believe in aliens for some unknown and inconsequential reason.
One of these scenario's it not ridiculously unrealistic.

 

[exsto_human]

'Paranormal'

is just what we call our own ignorance, same with miracles.

If something unexplainable happens you cannot simply deny it because you cannot explain it. And if it's big enough you might just have to reformulate your whole world-self perspective, this is the case with me. My perspective is that I lack perfect perspective and therefore seek to find it.

I will not accept anything someone else tells me untill I can truely prove it for myself.

 

[ScRaMbLe]

I've gotten those indications so I now believe, or more accurately know, that at least one species from another planet has visited earth.

Well come on, share the info! What brought you to this conclusion? Which, by the way, I agree with.

 

[BigBlueHead]

I wrote neutral skeptic. I am willing to accept that the greater part of what goes on in the world is not encompassed by human experience.

My skeptical leanings are extremely strong, however, and I am generally unwilling to accept a story out of hand from:
- anyone who supports an existing theory that is obviously suspect or has been shown in some cases to be a hoax (psychic predictions, psychic surgery)
- anyone who, upon seeing a simple phenomenon (such as an inexplicable funny shape in the sky) immediately connects it with other things that do not necessarily follow, such as aliens, MJ12, transmigration of the soul...

Consequently I will often criticise those who claim to have witnessed unusual phenomena. This is not because I don't believe that life could exist elsewhere in the universe, or that there could be forms of matter and energy which we are blind to.

It is generally because people will see a thing like a funny shape in the sky, and begin reading volumes of information into it that it cannot impart - that it is one of "them", that "they" are sending an advance scout, that this is a sign of "their" imminent invasion. This kind of speculation should not be passed on as having the same validity as the observation. To say that you saw the funny shape is very true and believable; to say that it's obviously an alien spacecraft (or a secret government aircraft, or Elvis) is more of a stretch.

 

[Enigma]

I have to say I am a firm believer in the paranormal, but I believe most 'paranormal' events of today are either a hoax or overactive imagination. This universe is so diverse, in the way that anything is possible, even if I don't experience or understand it.

 

[Dinosaur]

I called myself a skeptical nonbeliever, although faithful nonbeliever might be closer to my point of view. I do not expect to see any convincing evidence, although I must admit that there is a nonzero probability of alien contact in the future.

It is incredible that so many people seem to believe in paranormal nonsense. Consider ESP & alien visitations as examples of paranormal phenomena. Surveys indicates that 40-60% of educated people have some level of belief in these two.

In the late 1920's or early 1930's, Rhine at Duke University set up some experiments alleged to be a serious attempt to investigate telepathy, clairvoyance, and perhaps some other related phenomena. That was 70-80 years ago. Since then, there have been many books, quite a few departments of parapsychology, and many thousands of experiments. So far, there has not been any evidence to support claims for ESP abilities. Furthermore, analysis of the various claims describe an ability with characteristics that do not make any sense, and almost all the experimental designs are biased in favor of finding evidence whether the ability exists or not. When is it time for sensible people to give up on this one?

The first UFO sightings were from 50-60 years ago. WW2 pilots told of Foo Fighters. I was never sure if they were joking or serious. Servicemen from that era invented Kilroy, a mythical person who was everywhere. Perhaps Foo fighters was another WW2 service joke like Kilroy. If Foo Fighters were a joke, the first serious account of Ufology was a book written in about 1952-1955 by somebody with a name something like Major Defoe or Keyhoe. Same as for ESP, in 50 years there has been no evidence supporting the claim that aliens have visited the Earth. There have been uncounted anecdotes, conspiracy theories about government coverups, and phoney photographs, but no worthwhile evidence. When do people give up on this one?

It bugs me that charlatans make lots of money writing books and sponsoring various promotions on these and other paranormal subjects. When do the gullible who view themselves as having open minds realize that scam artists are making money selling this type of nonsense? It is a sophisticated variant on the gypsy fortune teller routine.

 

[spookz]

your disillusionment and cynicism affect your powers of discernment in a negative manner. end result? an inability or refusal to separate the wheat from the chaff. that is too bad but hey........

 

[candy]

I agree with spookz. Just because our limited scientific knowledge can not explain what someone like Edgar Cayce did or how someone like Caroline Myss or Mona Lisa Schulz does what they do in no way means they did not do it.
Scientific theory or methodology can not be allowed to surplant reality. That we can not explain how something is working is a reflection of our ignorance of the universe not proof that it did not happen. It is what ever it is and it will happen whether or not science can test it.
Also I believe that there is a general out there who was kidnapped by terrorist who you had best not try to convince that remote viewing did not work.

 

[Dinosaur]

Candy: The following is a joke, correct?

Scientific theory or methodology can not be allowed to surplant reality. That we can not explain how something is working is a reflection of our ignorance of the universe not proof that it did not happen. It is what ever it is and it will happen whether or not science can test it.

The paranormal is reality? If somebody makes up a silly story not explainable via modern science, we are expected to believe it?? Lack of any evidence or scientific explanation is supposed to indicate ignorance rather than faulty observation, faulty interpretation of observation, and/or an outright lie on the part of the story teller??

Remote viewing?? Be serious!! How about pixie dust, Leprechauns, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Science cannot explain them either.

Is evidence other than anecdotes unnecessary for belief in the paranormal? Is this a religion? Faith is belief in the absence of evidence (perhaps in spite of evidence). This is a religious notion. Do you believers in the paranormal believe as a matter of faith? If so, I will not argue about the subject. I happen to be an atheist, but never argue with believers (unless they are militant about trying to convert me).

BTW: Working scientists tend to ignore the paranormal rather than wasting time trying to disprove it. Before I retired, my interest was similar to my interest in Scifi and other types of fiction. I did not have time to argue with believers.

 

[spookz]

neither am i quite sure that what i said supported candy's assertion.
whatever tho

 

[candy]

Reality is reality whether or not science can explain how it works.
Scientists may not be able to explain how people like Myss, Schulz, and the late Cayce could do what they do but the failure of science to explain it does not mean they do not do what they say. Reality is a happening not a sceintific theory. As to the remote viewing that was used in conjunction with hard asset intelligence to free the general. It was done under controlled conditions within the confines of government installations. If you chose not to believe it was done you are disputing a provable fact. See MINDTREK: by Joe McMoneagle
These people do what you want to be impossible because you can not define it or do it your self that does not alter the reality that they can do incredible things.

 

[spookz]

or lack of proof doesnt imply lack of existence

shit like this will get a "purple pink dinosaur" response to which i drag out my usual.......


THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence,the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either.


see dino's ....How about pixie dust, Leprechauns, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? Science cannot explain them either.

 

[VRob]

Originally posted by Dinosaur
Science cannot explain them either.

So, if Science can't confirm something, then it doesn't exist?? :bugeye:

I'm so tired of this thought process. The ultimate in ignorance. You must have been in agreement with those who wanted to close down the Patent organization in the early 1900's, as there was obviously nothing more to invent.

So what you're saying then Dinosaur, is we already know everything there is to know about Science, Physics, the Universe, Life/Death ... ?

 

[candy]

I would assume that Dinosaur is not a fan of Peter Russell's WAKING UP IN TIME but for the less closed minded it is a nice read. It is a good exploration of what is deemed paranormal by some as part of the evolution of human consciousness.

 

[spookz]

vrob

well well
a belated welcome/welcome back

 

[Dinosaur]

Spookz: Sorry about the Santa Claus Gambit. I did not realize that this discussion is based on logic, observation, and hard evidence. No fallacious arguments or unscientific remarks allowed here. At least I now know that nobody here is a believer in pixie dust, Leprechauns, or the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Others: What do you folks accept as a basis for belief?

So, if Science can't confirm something, then it doesn't exist??

Reality is reality whether or not science can explain how it works. I'm so tired of this thought process. The ultimate in ignorance. You must have been in agreement with those who wanted to close down the Patent organization in the early 1900's, as there was obviously nothing more to invent. So what you're saying then Dinosaur, is we already know everything there is to know about Science, Physics, the Universe, Life/Death ... ?

People posting here apparently accept the paranormal as proven realities (I suppose that is what is meant by reality is reality).

I have heard the patent office story before. I also remember hearing that scientists at the end of the 19th century were alleged to believe that physicists had nothing more to learn. Both of these stories are nonsense. No knowledgeable physicist ever made either of those remarks. If I had not heard them before I would suspect that one of you folks made them up.

Neither I nor scientists in general believe we know everything. What we do profess to know is based on evidence and logic, not faith or unquestioning belief in anecdotes.

As for remote viewing, I flat out consider it based on lies told by somebody and repeated by others. It is one of the more ridiculous paranormal claims. I consider belief in telepathy & clairvoyance to be naive, but cannot think of a suitable adjective for those who believe in remote viewing based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

ESP research has been going on for about 70 years, longer if you want to include mere anecdotal evidence, fortune telling, Nostradamus, et cetera. In all that time, no results that can be verified and we still have believers.

On what do you people base your beliefs?

 

[VRob]

Originally posted by Dinosaur
What do you folks accept as a basis for belief?People posting here apparently accept the paranormal as proven realities (I suppose that is what is meant by reality is reality.

The reason I began posting on this board, was because I thought it was a place to discuss interesting topics, outside of the ridicule normally associated with this topic. Unfortunately, I was mistaken. The long arm of ignorance extends quite far.

I have heard the patent office story before. I also remember hearing that scientists at the end of the 19th century were alleged to believe that physicists had nothing more to learn. Both of these stories are nonsense. No knowledgeable physicist ever made either of those remarks. If I had not heard them before I would suspect that one of you folks made them up.

Then how do you explain your previous comments? The comparisons to Leprechans, or Santa Claus? Do you even have a clue as to how much evidence there is in support of extraterrestial(Or ourside of this planet), visitation to this planet? I'm going to assume you don't based on your comments. I'm not talking about blurry photo's or crop circles/abduction cases. I'm talking about military eyewitnesses. The Military's history of interest/non-interest in the subject. The fact that civilian pilots were given the same National Security restrictions as Military Pilots in 1952. Why??? Why would the National Security of the United States need to put a security restriction on what Civilian pilots reported to the media?

What we do profess to know is based on evidence and logic, not faith or unquestioning belief in anecdotes.

Once again Dinosour, I think you need to educate yourself a bit more. The evidence that the UFO phonomena is something very real and not a case of mass histeria is very high. However, what it takes is someone who is willing to look beyond CNN, Fox news, or his evening news. It is still hampered by what I call the ridicule factor. If you don't know what this means, then you really have no reason to be in this thread. Unless you come in here with an open mind willing to accept that the way you think things are, just might not be the case.

On what do you people base your beliefs?

It isn't about beliefs. It's about sorting through the evidence at hand, and coming to a relative conclusion.

I think most of us understand that there's plenty of disinformation being thrown out there, but anyone who's done his homework would see this as another piece of evidence. Why would the powers that be go to so much trouble over the years to keep a lid on this issue.

There is really no single item that confirms or deny's the UFO issue, but the entire collection of data, combined, would lead any rational individual to conclude that there is definately something very, very important being concelled from the public. This, there can be no doubt about.

 

[ripleofdeath]

RE thread topic question

there is currently more people that believe in the concept of a god where there is no direct physical evidence
in comparison to the whole "paranormal" debate which is by terms most often used to discribe ghosts and the after life issues

as we open one door it shows us there are many more doors

most people lack the personal/self understanding to be able to
comfortably discuss such things without letting their obsesions and or phobias take control of the direction and main emphasis of the discusion

i think the thread starter has raised a key issue
in light of the question of self honesty
how many people will be able to admit to themselfs that they
already have made up their mind before they start discussing
OR MORE COMMON
before they START TO ATTEMPT TO DIS-PROVE any such events
they realy are a bad advert for science when they have some title of scientific reference to their name
yet are incapable of being unbiased

an open mind is a common target for closed minded people

just like an open heart is a common target for those that have
given up on love

groove on all