What are your paranormal beliefs?

[tazelbain]

Life is certainly easier to understand when you chalk up everything you can't explain as a sensory glitch.

No less difficult than when you chalk up everything you can't explain as the work of an inscrutable entity.

[geldonyetich]

That's why I've heard it recommended one live in the middle, rather than either extreme.  Neither refusing to consider the possibility of everything you don't understand, nor placing blind faith in solutions you have no proof to back up.  It involves a certain acceptance of uncertainly, and there's very little security to be found there, but if you're honestly interested in getting as close to the truth as possible then that is where you sit, with your eyes open.

Of course, the people on one side of the fence will be threatening you with hot burning torment of your eternal soul for not backing up their faith, and the people on the other side of the fence will tell you you're being ignorantly closed-minded for not accepting their choice to be ignorantly close-minded.

[Valmorian]

So, is it an anecdote to say that I have seen a ghost face to face? (the single most scary experience of my entire life btw) That I have "felt" it for lack of a better term as well?

Yes, that IS an anecdote.  I'm sure you're aware of that as well.

For you, it is an anecdote probably because you don't know me. Fair enough. But I know my friend, I know these other people, obviously I know my own experiences.

Obviously you know your own experiences?  There's a lot of people out there that "Know" they've been abducted by aliens, that the government is out to get them, that Elvis is alive, etc..  People are often not the best judges of what their experiences mean.

I'd be willing to bet my life though, that even if you knew these other people, and trusted them with your life (as I do my best friend) you'd find some other way to explain these things away because it doesn't fit your world view. That my friend, is faith.

My trust in someone has nothing to do with whether they are correct about their experiences.  You seem to think that if someone is trustworthy, that means they can't be wrong about unexplained events that they remember.  That's a rather odd worldview.

[Valmorian]

Life is certainly easier to understand when you chalk up everything you can't explain as a sensory glitch.

How about understanding that human senses are fallible, and experiences that contradict what we know about the world are more likely to be false?  If ghosts exist, why is it that we don't get evidence of their existence from skeptical investigation?  Why do all the "haunted houses" turn out to be fakes or unreproducible events? 

[geldonyetich]

How about understanding that human senses are fallible, and experiences that contradict what we know about the world are more likely to be false?  If ghosts exist, why is it that we don't get evidence of their existence from skeptical investigation?  Why do all the "haunted houses" turn out to be fakes or unreproducible events? 

One needs to be able to understand this without allowing it to dominate their thinking about everything.

My brother's car is broken.  I don't believe all cars are broken.  I'm would be willing to accept there is a possibility of a working car prior to actually seeing one.  But analogies are easy to poke holes into, so try to interpret what validity you can from this paragraph and discard the rest.

[Valmorian]

My brother's car is broken.  I don't believe all cars are broken.  I'm would be willing to accept there is a possibility of a working car prior to actually seeing one.  But analogies are easy to poke holes into, so try to interpret what validity you can from this paragraph and discard the rest.

And I, as a skeptic, am willing to accept the possibility of ghosts prior to actually seeing one.   That possibility is at the same level as leprechauns, the tooth fairy and santa claus.  The fact that there are people who swear they have seen ghosts doesn't mean any more to me than those people who swear they have been abducted by aliens.

The point is, the evidence to support the existence of ghosts is severely lacking, and the evidence that people are often mistaken about their experiences and what they mean is commonplace.  Given such things, it wouldn't be very rational for me to say:

"Well, the evidence to support the existence of ghosts is pretty much entirely subjective, anecdotal, uncontrolled experiences so of course I believe."

[geldonyetich]

If you're really a "skeptic", you're not willing to accept the possibility of ghosts, leprechauns, the tooth faithy, and santa claus.  A skeptic would have already have mentally filed them as, "Things it is my moral crusade to argue against because they are false."  A skeptic is as closed minded as any man of faith, but on the other side.  A skeptic is not really interested in truth so much as building mental barriers in the world that make it easier for one to deal with.

If you're really interested in getting to the truth of things, it begins with cultivating an understanding that an answer that is neither "yes or no" is acceptable.  I never said ghosts exist, I never said ghosts didn't exist.  If you read that and think, "Well, this guy believes ghosts exist", you would be wrong.  If you read that and think, "Well, this guy believes ghosts do not exist", you would also be wrong.

[Yegolev]

I believe in the Tooth Faithy.

[geldonyetich]

If what I hold as a very credible source (my parents and TV) told me the tooth fairy existed, and tooth disappeared and a shiny quarter was left in its place, the tooth fairy has some very good supporting evidence.  What counterproof do I have? 

[tazelbain]

That's why I've heard it recommended one live in the middle, rather than either extreme.  Neither refusing to consider the possibility of everything you don't understand, nor placing blind faith in solutions you have no proof to back up.  It involves a certain acceptance of uncertainly, and there's very little security to be found there, but if you're honestly interested in getting as close to the truth as possible then that is where you sit, with your eyes open.

Of course, the people on one side of the fence will be threatening you with hot burning torment of your eternal soul for not backing up their faith, and the people on the other side of the fence will tell you you're being ignorantly closed-minded for not accepting their choice to be ignorantly close-minded.

I am going to go back to my "belief in electricity 3 thousand years ago."  It'd be an irrational to believe in electricity back then even though it did exist because the rational framework to understand that lightning and static where the same thing did not exist.  Maybe 3 thousand years from now the phenomenon behind ghosts will be as understand as electricity.  Until then you just a person trying to put together a thousand piece puzzle together with just handful of pieces.  Any claim of believe there after is merely you adding extra pieces in your head to make it fit.

[tazelbain]

If you're really a "skeptic", you're not willing to accept the possibility of ghosts, leprechauns, the tooth faithy, and santa claus.  A skeptic would have already have mentally filed them as, "Things it is my moral crusade to argue against because they are false."  A skeptic is as closed minded as any man of faith, but on the other side.  A skeptic is not really interested in truth so much as building mental barriers in the world that make it easier for one to deal with.

If you're really interested in getting to the truth of things, it begins with cultivating an understanding that an answer that is neither "yes or no" is acceptable.  I never said ghosts exist, I never said ghosts didn't exist.  If you read that and think, "Well, this guy believes ghosts exist", you would be wrong.  If you read that and think, "Well, this guy believes ghosts do not exist", you would also be wrong.

Now you are just redefining words to suite your argument.

[Valmorian]

If you're really a "skeptic", you're not willing to accept the possibility of ghosts, leprechauns, the tooth faithy, and santa claus.  A skeptic would have already have mentally filed them as, "Things it is my moral crusade to argue against because they are false."  A skeptic is as closed minded as any man of faith, but on the other side.  A skeptic is not really interested in truth so much as building mental barriers in the world that make it easier for one to deal with.

That's just terribly ignorant.  Where in the world do you get that definition of skepticism?  Are you referring to philosophical skepticism instead, perhaps?

[Riggswolfe]

So, is it an anecdote to say that I have seen a ghost face to face? (the single most scary experience of my entire life btw) That I have "felt" it for lack of a better term as well?

Yes, that IS an anecdote.  I'm sure you're aware of that as well.

To you it is an anecdote. To me it is something I experienced firsthand that made me swing towards "you know, I don't know what ghosts are, but I am damn sure know they exist."

For you, it is an anecdote probably because you don't know me. Fair enough. But I know my friend, I know these other people, obviously I know my own experiences.

Obviously you know your own experiences?  There's a lot of people out there that "Know" they've been abducted by aliens, that the government is out to get them, that Elvis is alive, etc..  People are often not the best judges of what their experiences mean.

We're getting to the heart of what Geldon has been trying to say here. You have no objectivity. You refuse to believe anything that interferes with your worldview and become condescending rather than rationally discussing things or even acknowledging a possibility that you may be wrong. You are, as he said, just as much a fundamentalist as someone like Pat Robertson.

I'd be willing to bet my life though, that even if you knew these other people, and trusted them with your life (as I do my best friend) you'd find some other way to explain these things away because it doesn't fit your world view. That my friend, is faith.

My trust in someone has nothing to do with whether they are correct about their experiences.  You seem to think that if someone is trustworthy, that means they can't be wrong about unexplained events that they remember.  That's a rather odd worldview.

It means I know he wasn't lying, and if he is convinced of what he experienced I have two choices: 1) Believe he was suffering some kind of mental problem (hallucination, delusion, etc) or 2) Believe he experienced something he can't explain that when added to my own experiences I tend to think of as potentially true.

[Riggswolfe]

If you're really a "skeptic", you're not willing to accept the possibility of ghosts, leprechauns, the tooth faithy, and santa claus.  A skeptic would have already have mentally filed them as, "Things it is my moral crusade to argue against because they are false."  A skeptic is as closed minded as any man of faith, but on the other side.  A skeptic is not really interested in truth so much as building mental barriers in the world that make it easier for one to deal with.

That's just terribly ignorant.  Where in the world do you get that definition of skepticism?  Are you referring to philosophical skepticism instead, perhaps?

I'd argue that you are not a skeptic. A skeptic doubts something is true, but is open to being proven wrong. You have unshakeable faith that your beliefs are the only correct ones.

[geldonyetich]

Oh, are we operating on everyone holding the same definition of words now? ;)

Claiming you're a "Skeptic" is a pretty slippery slope.  Under the classical definition, you're saying you choose to disbelieve in something.  If you've not clearly defined what exactly it is you're disbelieving and how you go about it, you're leaving yourself pretty open to misinterpretation.  I'm not psychic... which would be yet another paranormal can of worms.

That's just terribly ignorant.  Where in the world do you get that definition of skepticism?  Are you referring to philosophical skepticism instead, perhaps?

Explained above, and yes, the dictionary agrees with me in the majority of the definition of the word skeptic.

This is really the problem with any verbal/written communication - there are inherent limitations on the English language that make it difficult to convey, without a shadow of misunderstanding, what we are trying to convey.  Getting pissed off about it serves no purpose, but without cultivating a certain acceptance of uncertainty you probably will.  That's another kind of terrible ignorance, made all the more so when you recognize it in yourself.

[Valmorian]

To you it is an anecdote. To me it is something I experienced firsthand that made me swing towards "you know, I don't know what ghosts are, but I am damn sure know they exist."

If it happened to ME it would be an anecdote too.  I've had unexplained things happen in my life as well, but that's what they are, unexplained.  Making up my own solution to them doesn't make that solution correct, particularly if it goes against well supported evidence about how the world works.

We're getting to the heart of what Geldon has been trying to say here. You have no objectivity. You refuse to believe anything that interferes with your worldview and become condescending rather than rationally discussing things or even acknowledging a possibility that you may be wrong. You are, as he said, just as much a fundamentalist as someone like Pat Robertson.

Of course I'm being objective.  I'm being the most objective I CAN be.  I place ALL personal experiences in the "interesting, but doesn't really prove anything" category.  Could I be wrong?  OF COURSE I COULD.  I've never said I COULDN'T be wrong.  

All your straw man arguments to the contrary, I would certainly be willing to entertain the possibility of Ghosts, I just don't rely on anecdotal experiences to support it.  I treat those anecdotes the same way I treat anecdotes about faith healers, or psychics.

It means I know he wasn't lying, and if he is convinced of what he experienced I have two choices: 1) Believe he was suffering some kind of mental problem (hallucination, delusion, etc) or 2) Believe he experienced something he can't explain that when added to my own experiences I tend to think of as potentially true.

Sure, he may very well have experienced something.  I'm not saying he didn't.  I'm saying that based upon those experiences, jumping to the conclusion that "Ghosts are real!" is premature.

[Riggswolfe]

To you it is an anecdote. To me it is something I experienced firsthand that made me swing towards "you know, I don't know what ghosts are, but I am damn sure know they exist."

If it happened to ME it would be an anecdote too.  I've had unexplained things happen in my life as well, but that's what they are, unexplained.  Making up my own solution to them doesn't make that solution correct, particularly if it goes against well supported evidence about how the world works.

If it happened to you it would be an anecdote only to others. An anecdote is:

An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident.

So the only way it would be an anecdote to you is if someone else told you about an experience in your own life. (A bizarre situation to say the least unless you're an amnesiac.)

As for the rest of your post, about jumping to the conclusion ghosts are real is premature, perhaps so. It is probably more accurate for me to say that I went from the skeptical viewpoint of "nah, it's all stories" to "well, I saw something, he did too, that other couple did, maybe I need to allow for the possibility there really is something we can't explain out there."

My view on scientific proof is that no proof does not equal something is not real. To use Tazelbain's analogy, we just might not have the means and understanding to measure something like "ghost energy" or whatever the hell you want to call it.

[Valmorian]

If it happened to you it would be an anecdote only to others. An anecdote is:

An anecdote is a short tale narrating an interesting or amusing biographical incident.

So the only way it would be an anecdote to you is if someone else told you about an experience in your own life. (A bizarre situation to say the least unless you're an amnesiac.)

How would that not be an anecdote for me as well?  There's nothing in that description that says that it must be from someone else.  It doesn't say that I have to not remember it.  It just says an anecdote is a short tale.  Any experience I have would be a short tale.

This is all beside the point though, since I'm sure you realize what I meant by "anecdote" and this is just an unimportant divergence.

It is probably more accurate for me to say that I went from the skeptical viewpoint of "nah, it's all stories" to "well, I saw something, he did too, that other couple did, maybe I need to allow for the possibility there really is something we can't explain out there."

I'm very well aware there are things out there that are unexplained.  That doesn't mean they are unexplainABLE, and my own inability to come up with a mundane explanation for every unusual incident in my life (or anyone elses) says nothing about whether those experiences truly ARE less than mundane.  All it means is that I wasn't able to come up with an answer. 

That doesn't mean the proper response is to make up whatever I want to believe it is and pretend that the experience is evidence to support it. 

My view on scientific proof is that no proof does not equal something is not real. To use Tazelbain's analogy, we just might not have the means and understanding to measure something like "ghost energy" or whatever the hell you want to call it.

Of course that's possible, and I've never claimed it was impossible.  I've just said that I'm skeptical of it because, quite frankly, the experiences of those who have seen ghosts are really not that different than the experiences of those who have been abducted by aliens, seen bigfoot, witnessed a faith healing or had a psychic experience.

[stray]

Speaking of explaining "unexplained" paranormal phenomena, has anyone heard about the studies done with methane pockets and the Bermuda Triangle?

I remember catching a show about a year back about it. Seems like the most plausible explanation (what that article doesn't get into is how methane fumes can screw with flight instruments and throw off the mix of engines' fuel and air --- which would explain various radio communications from pilots in the area who talked about weird readings and stalls, just before they went missing).

[WayAbvPar]

Speaking of explaining "unexplained" paranormal phenomena, has anyone heard about the studies done with methane pockets and the Bermuda Triangle?

I remember catching a show about a year back about it. Seems like the most plausible explanation (what that article doesn't get into is how methane fumes can screw with flight instruments and throw off the mix of engines' fuel and air --- which would explain various radio communications from pilots in the area who talked about weird readings and stalls, just before they went missing).

I caught something on TV about it in the past year or so as well (like I said, I can't get enough of this kind of stuff!). It sounded plausible, but I would like to see a more objective look at it (as well as some, like, scientific tests or something    )

[stray]

The one I saw had a lot of scientific tests. Nothing elaborate though. Scaled ship models were used for testing submersion. All of the stuff dealing with flight instruments were dealt with by adjusting methane adjustments in a computer simulator. The engine stalls were tested by feeding methane into various type of plane engines that were known to have been lost.

[WayAbvPar]

Oh that sounds interesting. IIRC the one I saw showed how bubbles from the sea floor would FUBAR a ship's buoyancy, but I didn't see anything with planes being tested.

[Kail]

It's possible, I suppose, but I'm not really convinced.  As far as I'm aware (and my numbers are a bit old, so feel free to correct me), the statistical odds of loosing a ship in the Bermuda Triangle aren't any greater than anywhere else (It's just a very busy area).  While gas hydrates might knock out a few ships or planes, I don't see them accounting for the "hallmarks" of Bermuda Triangle cases, such as lack of wreckage or bizarre instrumentation mishaps and so on, so it's doubtful that this will be satisfactory for the believers.  And while it's a possibility, unless I'm mistaken, nobody (alive) has ever seen this happen or proven anything outside a controlled experiment, so claiming that it's sinking ships seems like an unsatisfactory explanation for skeptics, as well.

[Calantus]

For me I basically take stances of varying disbelief on everything until it's been proven to my satisfaction. Right now I have no theory of creation that I can say I believe in. I lean towards 2 theories; the big bang, and that the universe was always here more-or-less as it is now. But I still disbelieve them, just less than the idea that God created the world in 7 days. I disbelieve in ghosts, alien abductions, and whatnot on the same principle. If it's proven to me somewhere along the line it wont make my world come crashing down either, because I don't have an oppinion one way or the other, just a lack of oppinion.

I also don't understand people's need to understand everything that happens. I just don't. I hear a sound or see something that is unusual and I forget about it the next moment because it is not relevant to me. I have this thing where I can usually tell when someone has entered my room and it's usually right. I'm not sure how it works exactly but I get the impression it's got to do with the movement of air. Very rarely I'll get that feeling that someone is there and turn around but there's nobody there. Is it some sixth sense that lets me know people are there? Is it picking up ghosts when I look back and nobody is there? Is it just me picking up on the changes in the air? Is the mistake happening when there is a different reason for the shift in air (like a small breeze or change in weather conditions)? Does it matter? Not to me. :P

[Sky]

I tentatively agree with your view, Cal. I'm also pretty skeptical about a lot of science like the Big Bang and especially String Theory.

As far as your second paragraphical scenario, it's a false positive. Some minute sound or air shift perked up your senses and your mind reacted instinctively. How does Dawkins put it...you can be wrong about a tree blowing in the wind being a wolf many times, but you can only be wrong about a wolf being a tree once. We're hardwired to see things that aren't there because it's safer than dismissing things that are.

[Valmorian]

I'd argue that you are not a skeptic. A skeptic doubts something is true, but is open to being proven wrong. You have unshakeable faith that your beliefs are the only correct ones.

That's simply not true.  My beliefs have changed many times in my life, and are open to being changed again. 

[Valmorian]

Explained above, and yes, the dictionary agrees with me in the majority of the definition of the word skeptic.

There ARE different definitions of skepticism, of course.  And I doubt you'd find the folks at, say, "Skeptic" magazine to be philosophical skeptics.  The common usage of Skeptic is certainly NOT the philosophical useage.  Sorry.

[geldonyetich]

Oh, I see.  I failed to read your mind.  Sorry.

[Valmorian]

Oh, I see.  I failed to read your mind.  Sorry.

Well, considering from context it's pretty clear I am not talking about philosophical skepticism...  in any case, if it's truely just a misunderstanding, oh well, those things happen, no?

[Llava]

Anecdote, in this conversation, is used as defined under "anecdotal":
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

Skeptic would be defined as follows:
1.   a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2.   a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

Yes, if something happened to me, it would still be an anecdote.  Because it's not scientific evaluation.  It's me saying "This one time...", which is meaningless as real evidence.  Wanna know how much anecdotal evidence in favor of Bigfoot I could put together?

[stray]

Wanna know how much anecdotal evidence in favor of Bigfoot I could put together?

I think it would be best if you just talked about it anyways. This thread should be for fun, and nothing but pointless anecdotes.

[Llava]

I can agree with that.  Just don't expect your story to convince me.

Fair?

[geldonyetich]

I should use that one more.

[stray]

I can agree with that.  Just don't expect your story to convince me.

Fair?

Nothing personal, but don't piss me off. Geldon's already doing a good job at it.

-

I don't have a pressing need for you believe any of my stories. I even invited everyone to offer their own opinions and explanations at the end of my story.

[geldonyetich]

Despite my indeed being in Stray's shit list right now, I have to say that I like his stories and see no need to try to disprove them.  Paranormal stuff is something you have to witness for yourself to really understand in the same way.  So, don't take it personally if you Llava is stating he isnt convinced.  I know you're not expecting him to suddenly place unconditional belief in what you said.