-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
What is Skepticism, a primer for understanding reality
- Thread starter trainedobserver
- Start date
Free episodes:
J.T.
Maybe Logic
That was interesting, though the problem is that skepticism often fails to apply its own criteria to what it preaches. The intent often seems to be a religious desire to make grandiose statements suggesting there is no evidence of esp, ghosts, ufos, whatever. There is a massive volume of evidence in all five categories, including scientific evidence.
The only thing standing between the acceptance of, say, remote viewing or esp, as 'something' to be studied without ridicule is the Truzzi quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and the religious fervor with which skeptics attack these subjects. Even Richard Wiseman acknowledges that by conventional scientific standards remote viewing is proven. That these 'talents' are fickle and apparently either difficult or impossible to control properly makes them equally difficult to pin down scientifically. Yet when you apply the science of statistics to many subjects, you get significant results suggesting there is 'something' there.
What bothers me is that skeptics (in general) are not interested in scientific results unless they are what is called 'extraordinary.' Much of this may well not be extraordinary, except only for the fact that it is not yet acknowledged by science. What is extraordinary is the taboo that makes it nearly impossible to study these subjects. What is extraordinary is that nobody seems interested in small but significant results. Many believers are equally bullheaded, demanding explosive results and proclamations. Study, research, test, investigate. Without prejudice, without dogmatism, without twisting results to fit your established results. Ask questions, suggest answers, and keep an open mind to the possibility of the universe being more mysterious than what we can grasp with our tiny little minds.
A good, brief case study by Nobel prize winner for Physics, Brian Josephson:
Scientists use Media for Propaganda
A longer, more detailed study by Chris Carter:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Carter_Wiseman.pdf
"Science is a turtle that says its own shell encloses all things" Charles Fort
"Only the madman is absolutely sure." Robert Anton Wilson
The only thing standing between the acceptance of, say, remote viewing or esp, as 'something' to be studied without ridicule is the Truzzi quote "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and the religious fervor with which skeptics attack these subjects. Even Richard Wiseman acknowledges that by conventional scientific standards remote viewing is proven. That these 'talents' are fickle and apparently either difficult or impossible to control properly makes them equally difficult to pin down scientifically. Yet when you apply the science of statistics to many subjects, you get significant results suggesting there is 'something' there.
What bothers me is that skeptics (in general) are not interested in scientific results unless they are what is called 'extraordinary.' Much of this may well not be extraordinary, except only for the fact that it is not yet acknowledged by science. What is extraordinary is the taboo that makes it nearly impossible to study these subjects. What is extraordinary is that nobody seems interested in small but significant results. Many believers are equally bullheaded, demanding explosive results and proclamations. Study, research, test, investigate. Without prejudice, without dogmatism, without twisting results to fit your established results. Ask questions, suggest answers, and keep an open mind to the possibility of the universe being more mysterious than what we can grasp with our tiny little minds.
A good, brief case study by Nobel prize winner for Physics, Brian Josephson:
Scientists use Media for Propaganda
A longer, more detailed study by Chris Carter:
http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Carter_Wiseman.pdf
"Science is a turtle that says its own shell encloses all things" Charles Fort
"Only the madman is absolutely sure." Robert Anton Wilson
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." is attributed to Carl Sagan and isn't actually correct.
Extraordinary claims require the same type of evidence any other claim requires. Supportable evidence.
Extraordinary claims require the same type of evidence any other claim requires. Supportable evidence.
J.T.
Maybe Logic
J.T.
Maybe Logic
I'm curious, though, if you say:
"Extraordinary claims require the same type of evidence any other claim requires. Supportable evidence."
Then that means you do acknowledge psi and remote viewing as 'real,' at least in the sense that they are producing a measurable effect? Given that both are statistically shown in numerous studies, and that even prominent skeptics have stated that if this was research into any other science these results would be valid...
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
I haven't seen anything that has convinced me of that personally.
ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM
Whittingham
Skeptism is a educated formular of theory we are taught from learning and experince. 
Ron Collins
Curiously Confused
Agreed. It doesn't have to be sexy it just has to be provable.That line of Sagan's was a fancy quip designed to get attention. It makes no sense and yet it is thrown about as if it means something profound. It was catchy, thats it. The phrase "extraordinary evidence" is too subjective to mean anything.
Its not like scientists that cured the "Berlin Patient" from AIDS are sitting around going, "I dunno Joe, sure it is pretty good evidence since we cant find the virus in the blood we tested, but don't think it quite makes it to the extraordinary mark yet. I mean this guy has a lot of blood! You better hold of on the presser until we have real extraordinary evidence."
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-</SPAN>Barbara Tuchman
I have no problem with Skepticism but the use of the scientific method would be more appropriate personally. As I have said before “I do not want to believe, I want to know” both are entirely different mindsets</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
-</SPAN>Barbara Tuchman
I have no problem with Skepticism but the use of the scientific method would be more appropriate personally. As I have said before “I do not want to believe, I want to know” both are entirely different mindsets</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN>
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
It's always seemed to me when a skeptic "requires extraordinary proof" (whatever the definition of that is)..............what they are wanting is the space shuttle, when what we have is the Wright brothers first flier.
'Yeah, sure, it flies......but not very well and it doesn't fly enough for me."
'Yeah, sure, it flies......but not very well and it doesn't fly enough for me."
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Sure enough and I can understand where you are coming from but a skeptical mind is not a bad thing.
There are always the extremes of those that blindly believe and those that categorically don’t and always will be.
To take either stance is to throw oneself in with the lot of either blind faith or willful ignorance and neither will help forward our thinking on any subject.
Personally I find blind faith frightening and pure skepticism egotistical and empty. I ask that you please not get logic and skepticism mixed up as they are not the same thing at all.
The skeptic will use logic to back up a pre defined agenda where as the thinker will use it to develop an idea and that is the distinction between the two from my point of view.
Both mindsets are totally different and as we study the paranormal we should take the stance of the logical thinker not the outright skeptic or the blind believer. This is a fine line for sure but to take either extreme is to lose sight of the ultimate goal “to know not to believe” and neither the skeptic nor the true believer can provide this.
So having a little skeptic in us is a good thing, just not too much or what was the point in studying anything at all if you already know the answer?<O
></O>
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Sure enough and I can understand where you are coming from but a skeptical mind is not a bad thing.
There are always the extremes of those that blindly believe and those that categorically don’t and always will be.
To take either stance is to throw oneself in with the lot of either blind faith or willful ignorance and neither will help forward our thinking on any subject.
Personally I find blind faith frightening and pure skepticism egotistical and empty. I ask that you please not get logic and skepticism mixed up as they are not the same thing at all.
The skeptic will use logic to back up a pre defined agenda where as the thinker will use it to develop an idea and that is the distinction between the two from my point of view.
Both mindsets are totally different and as we study the paranormal we should take the stance of the logical thinker not the outright skeptic or the blind believer. This is a fine line for sure but to take either extreme is to lose sight of the ultimate goal “to know not to believe” and neither the skeptic nor the true believer can provide this.
So having a little skeptic in us is a good thing, just not too much or what was the point in studying anything at all if you already know the answer?<O
I am not a skeptic. I am not a true beleiver either.
A skeptic comes from a viewpoint of already disbeleiving, and trying to cram everything into that niche.
A true beleiver comes from a viewpoint of already beleiving, and does the same cramming.
What I am is a "critical thinker". I look (or try to anyway) at all the available evidence, then I look at the possible explanations, then I try to determine which one - given the data - is probably the most likely. I try my best not to develop an emotional attachment to any possibility.
But I must be honest here and say I do have an attachment for the ETH hypothesis when it comes to solid looking craft performing beyond human technology capabilities (as far as we know). So I am aware of that, and hopefully it won't color my thinking unreasonably.
It's like Chris Rock said in "Dogma"; "It's not good to have a beleif. People die for beleifs, people kill for beleifs. It is, however good to have an idea. An idea can change to meet the circumstances and no one gets hurt."
To me that's one of the best ideas I have ever heard.
But this doesn't just apply to UFO/UAP's, I strive to do this with all parts of daily life, with varying degrees of success.
And I'm also interested in all aspects of the paranormal, the unexplained, the "What the HELL was that?" . I love a good mystery. It makes an otherwise mundane existence awe inspiring, with a sense of wonder and yes, full of magick. Every time I look through my telescope, it always runs through my mind "Is someone else staring back at me?".
I might be just an overgrown kid playing at make beleive, but I think it makes life fun and worth living.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own." , Adam Savage, "Mythbusters"
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Interesting that you quote Adam Savage - you know that he proudly labels himself a "skeptic" and he's a regular attendee of James Randi's TAM.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
I didnt know about the James Randi thing, but I knew he classifies himself in the extreme skeptic corner.
I guess he takes his own advice then.
Angel of Ioren
Friendly Skeptic
Have you seen the "Moon Landing Hoax" episode of Mythbusters? I thought they did a good job of shutting up those morons.
He's also excellent at stand-up comedy, as heard on The Nerdist podcast when he was a guest. I'll actually be seeing that podcast live at Just for Laughs next month, along with Marc Maron's WTF - two of my favorite shows. Highly recommended to anyone that likes comedy and nerdy stuff.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Yes I saw the Moon Hoax Mythbusters episode, one of my favorites. I thought the footprint test in the vacuum chamber was the best one, but the photos with the models were good too.
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Never said you were a skeptic I was simply making a point of distinction and it was not directed at you personally.A "critical thinker" has a little of the skeptic in them or you can not be a critical thinker ... But on the other hand a critical thinker is not a believer... As I have said in a number of posts over the years here "I want to know not believe" and to even have a chance at knowledge requires critical thinking which I am sure we agree on.
So no offence meant if any was taken.<o></o>
So no offence meant if any was taken.<o
></o>
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Never said you were a skeptic I was simply making a point of distinction and it was not directed at you personally.A "critical thinker" has a little of the skeptic in them or you can not be a critical thinker ... But on the other hand a critical thinker is not a believer... As I have said in a number of posts over the years here "Iwant to know not believe" and to even have a chance at knowledge requires critical thinking which I am sure we agree on.So no offence meant if any was taken.<O
Wasn't taken personally at all my freind. Just posting some ideas is all.