Where do we draw the line?

[Angel of Ioren]

I was hoping to get some thoughts on where people draw the line for what they believe of people. Mine is that I won't believe fantastical claims without a shred of proof. So, you tell me aliens are coming to visit you, and speaking through you, but there's nothing there to prove it, I will call you a liar. Now, you say you had an experience where there was something bizarre that happened; say you saw a ghost, or had a sort of prophetic dream, or even saw a UFO - I won't call you a liar, but I will say that you probably didn't see something paranormal. You see, I'll always prefer to think that it was something natural or man-made since there's nothing that shows me (or people like me) that anything "paranormal" exists. Although some people in this forum will hate me for it, I consider myself firmly in the James Randi school of skepticism. I do try my best to be nice about it though, and I like most people on this forum, despite our differences.

So the line drawing: I think most people that have had paranormal experiences are NOT liars - they have just misinterpreted what they have seen or "felt." Walter Bosley comes to mind - I think he's being sincere, but I do believe that he has interpreted his experiences incorrectly. I gladly accept that I could be completely wrong on that, but I don't think so. Unless some actual evidence comes up, I won't be changing my mind.
However, there are people that are outright liars looking for some attention. Those people piss me off. That's where I draw the line. When you come here and are adamant that extra-terrestrials are speaking through you and you expect us to buy garbage like that, I get really frustrated.

So, where do you draw the line?

P.S. Only because someone tried to use this type of logic with me once: Don't ask me: "If someone goes to the store to buy a loaf of bread, do you ask to see the loaf of bread?" No. I'm only referring to events that are not part of the way we understand the world. That's where I need something to back up a claim. If not, there's usually another explanation. Unless aliens are talking to you - then you're lying and/or crazy.

 

[rhcball]

Personally, I'd rather coddle a few delusions rather than hang around in James Randi's sterile classroom. But on the other hand, my interest in these matters has on several occasions revealed the embarassing extent of my own gullibility and faulty critical thinking, so maybe I'll be auditing a class or two after a few more bullshit artists break my heart.

 

[trainedobserver]

Personally, I'd rather coddle a few delusions rather than hang around in James Randi's sterile classroom. But on the other hand, my interest in these matters has on several occasions revealed the embarassing extent of my own gullibility and faulty critical thinking, so maybe I'll be auditing a class or two after a few more bullshit artists break my heart.

While I disagree with your description of James Randi's viewpoint as a "sterile classroom" I appreciate your comment about falling victim to your own gullibility and faulty critical thinking. I certainly have been guilty of that on more than one occasion myself. I have been and have witnessed countless others as they were severally burned and trampled upon by charlatans, con-men, and sincere but incredibly deluded individuals because of a pursuit of "spiritual truth" and an irrational belief that if I was sincere enough "truth", "god", or "the universe" would honor that and guide me. Wrong! It doesn't work that way no matter what holy text, guru, preacher, or spiritual "leader" says. You can easily substitute "paranormal" for spiritual in the above rant without any difficulty whatsoever. In fact Christianity is nothing if not a "paranormal" cavalcade. I'll take Randi's (who is not a perfect human being and shouldn't be expected to be) approach of reason and science to expose error and falsehood because I've already seen enough misery and suffering caused by coddling too many delusions and trusting far too much in my emotions.

 

[Han]

I think cultutral influence is important, for example If some body from England describes an "event" I feel that I would have more of a chance to detect if they are lying because I am English, and therefore would be tuned into their speach patterns and body language to a greater degree than if they were from China for example.
Having said that I would usually dismiss people whos claims require "faith" alone to be beleived.
I think that people do some times genuinely beleive what they, say but on the whole their motivations are badly concealed for e.g "I am a contactee so buy my DVD"
On the other hand through personal experiences and those of others I know to be genuine, I am sure that there are indeed areas of the paranormal(ufos included) that we understand little of and underestimate greatly.

"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.-Richard Dawkins "

By all means let's be narrow-minded but not so narrow-minded that the truth is crushed.

best wishes Harry

 

[Xylo]

Personally I draw the line at somewhere just above normalcy. If the claim is TOO fantastic (ie: aliens from the planet Paramecium are visiting me and want me to spread their message that they're coming to save humanity...) then my BS meter peaks and I disregard. However, if someone says that they saw something unexplained in the sky whether alone or with co-witnesses, I want to know more before I decide how credible or incredible the event seems to be.

I also draw the line at someone/anyone that sources the cause of the event; as in "I saw this light in the sky and knew it had to be aliens." For me, night time sightings of anomalous lights are all questionable. Daytime sightings are much more credible, especially if those sightings are correlated between individual witnesses.

I'm still undecided upon the whole abduction phenomena. I just don't know.

With respect to ghostly apparitions, experiences, poltergeist activity, or "holy" type of imagery- film is my best friend, but also my worst friend. I judge these by "gut" instinct. Some things send a shiver up my spine, some make me scream fake right away.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You see, I'll always prefer to think that it was something natural or man-made since there's nothing that shows me (or people like me) that anything "paranormal" exists. Although some people in this forum will hate me for it, I consider myself firmly in the James Randi school of skepticism. I do try my best to be nice about it though, and I like most people on this forum, despite our differences.

So the line drawing: I think most people that have had paranormal experiences are NOT liars - they have just misinterpreted what they have seen or "felt." Walter Bosley comes to mind - I think he's being sincere, but I do believe that he has interpreted his experiences incorrectly. I gladly accept that I could be completely wrong on that, but I don't think so. Unless some actual evidence comes up, I won't be changing my mind.

Hmmm, I see that you don't mention anywhere in your statement that you even contemplate the possible existence the "paranormal" or such. You believe that there is no such thing as "paranormal". Please correct me if i have got this wrong. You seem to be extremely close minded and I never for one moment believed it was to that extent. Of course that is your right to have that opinion but it shows that you really are a Randiite (=debunker) and not a true sceptic.

Again the question must be asked, Why are you here on these forums? I'm sure you have made some kind of answer before this but, please enlighten us again. Are you some kind of JREF troll or spy,lol Or are you just here to tell those of us who have had unexplained experiences that we are fooling ourselves, not really having any kind of paranormal experience but that they can all be explained away by mundane answers such as man made or natural occurrences. Are you really that arrogant to think that there are no unexplainable (by your frames of reference) paranormal events, just because you don't believe in the paranormal?

You seem to judge people rather harshly and your statements show a kind of critical pompousness and disdain for any possibility of the occult or hidden.

So, where do you draw the line?

I certainly don't just believe everything that is told to me, paranormal or not. If you spin me a line of shit i will pick up on it. I prefer to let each person have their own journey on the paranormal road whether or not I believe them. If they are full of it they will trip themselves up eventually.
And that's what the paranormal is all about I believe. It's a personal journey. If you have never had a paranormal event occur in your life, then perhaps your journey hasn't started yet. But please don't judge those who have had by your extremely high tuned critical filter.
I draw the line with people who are too ignorant and close minded to accept that there maybe a "possibilty" of there being a "paranormal" or "paranormal" answers to some occurrences.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I see that you don't mention anywhere in your statement that you even contemplate the possible existence the "paranormal" or such. You believe that there is no such thing as "paranormal". Please correct me if i have got this wrong. You seem to be extremely close minded and I never for one moment believed it was to that extent. Of course that is your right to have that opinion but it shows that you really are a Randiite (=debunker) and not a true sceptic.

We need to clarify things here - the skeptical movement is something that Randi is completely a part of. Although you may not believe it, Randi doesn't say that that we can't contemplate the existence of the paranormal although there's no proof of it right now. Anything is possible, and to think that we know everything is foolish. However, we can agree that there is no proof of anything paranormal that can be considered science. Perhaps it's above science and it'll never be proven, but then it becomes a matter of faith, and I'm not into religion.
So, for now, the "paranormal" such as ghosts, psychics, etc has not been proven scientifically. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Look at what we didn't know at the beginning of the 20th century and what we knew by the end of it. As for UFOs, well there are some interesting cases out there that have no real explanation, but again, that doesn't make them paranormal. We can say it's non-humans but we really have no proof, only speculation.

With regards to who is a true skeptic, i guess we all have our own definition.

Also, I am fed up of being asked why I am on these forums. I've answered that several times. I come here so that my line of thinking can be challenged, and I like the discussions. The paranormal interests me, but from the aspect as to why people believe in stuff that I can't find evidence for being real (not that it can't be). Also, I've only posted on the JREF forums once (today in fact) because I like it here more. I don't agree with everyone here and that makes things more interesting. If you don't like me, please let me know why, and it better not be just because I don't agree with you.

 

[Kandinsky]

Case by case and day by day!

I'd like to say I'm on the same side of the line that 'skeptics' stand behind, but I'm not far enough behind it to be a true skeptic. Having said that, I can find myself so far across that line...it's way back on the horizon.

In the overall scheme of things, it's worth asking if where we 'draw the line' has any importance at all? The paranormal and ufology subjects seem to plod along like a blind behemoth...regardless...carrying some and trampling others.

 

[SLVA]

I have a distain for people who steer their hypotheses round to the subject of Nazis and Child Abuse. This stinks of some dark undercurrent those individuals are harbouring and does nothing for the subject IMHO.

Personally, I don't go for Big Foot, Nordics (again potentially founded on very dodgy ground that one) and don't take abduction stories literally. Sorry. I will qualify that by saying I lean more toward "mass guilt phycosis" or psy-ops as the explanation. Until someone catches definitively it happening on video. More or less anything else I'll at least consider it.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

You see, I'll always prefer to think that it was something natural or man-made since there's nothing that shows me (or people like me) that anything "paranormal" exists.

Well now you've changed your quote to read:

However, we can agree that there is no proof of anything paranormal that can be considered science. Perhaps it's above science and it'll never be proven, but then it becomes a matter of faith, and I'm not into religion. So, for now, the "paranormal" such as ghosts, psychics, etc has not been proven scientifically. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist

So if science or scientists say that the paranormal does not exist, then there is no paranormal in any way shape or form? Isn't that "scientism" at it's finest . It also seems like a cop out and also ignores the body of evidence for the paranormal built up over the centuries. But of course that will be ignored that because there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence included and science fundamentalists don't like anecdotes.

Not everyone agrees that science is the gold standard for the definitive proof of their being a paranormal.

 

[NTS]

"...there is no paranormal in any way shape or form?"

There are paranormal experiences which sometimes have profound effects on the experiencers. Even if the source(s) of those experiences turn out to be things that are already scientifically understood, the experiences remain. And if that much isn't true, what are we all bothering with this for?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

So if science or scientists say that the paranormal does not exist, then there is no paranormal in any way shape or form?

Sorry NTS i have corrected the sentence so that it now makes some kind of sense!

 

[justcurious]

Thank you Angel, very interesting thread...

The line I draw is : closed onto itself, axially symmetric and fractal.

Since an image is worth a thousand words, here's one that also contains 26 words, for a total of 1026 words.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well now you've changed your quote to read:



So if science or scientists say that the paranormal does not exist, then there is no paranormal in any way shape or form? Isn't that "scientism" at it's finest . It also seems like a cop out and also ignores the body of evidence for the paranormal built up over the centuries. But of course that will be ignored that because there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence included and science fundamentalists don't like anecdotes.

Not everyone agrees that science is the gold standard for the definitive proof of their being a paranormal.

I'm not sure which quote you're saying I changed - I have not edited any of the posts in this thread. Calling scientists fundamentalists is quite annoying. Science is far from dogmatic. If something comes up that changes a scientific theory, and it is proven, well guess what, science changes to fit it. Science is falsifiable, faith is not.
Take evolution: as Richard Dawkins explains in his wonderful book "The Greatest Show on Earth," if we were to find a evidence of a rabbit in the Precambrian era, it would ruin the entire theory of evolution since rabbits could not have existed then in their present form.
The flip side is creationism where the answer becomes "God did it" for anything that can't be explained.
Obviously, you will not come around to my way of thinking because you think it's foolish and closed minded. I am totally fine with that. As long as you are happy in life, there's nothing wrong with a little faith in the unknown.

 

[justcurious]

Phil calling Angelo pompous is certainly telling. Angelo has been nothing but patient and understanding and open. Phil's desire to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with his fantasy beliefs (including a world where true skeptics are actually true believers) is a cautionary indicator of why the topic Phil holds so dear is greeted mostly with well deserved laughter.

Lance

Lance bashing Phil for calling Angelo pompous is certainly telling. Phil has been nothing but patient and understanding and open. Lance's desire to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with his fantasy beliefs (including a world where true skeptics are actually true believers) is a cautionary indicator of why the topic Lance holds so dear is greeted mostly with well deserved laughter.

Just playing with permutations here... 8)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Lance bashing Phil for calling Angelo pompous is certainly telling. Phil has been nothing but patient and understanding and open. Lance's desire to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with his fantasy beliefs (including a world where true skeptics are actually true believers) is a cautionary indicator of why the topic Lance holds so dear is greeted mostly with well deserved laughter.

Just playing with permutations here... 8)

You're actually being purposefully antagonistic, again.

 

[justcurious]

You're actually being purposefully antagonistic, again.

I am merely joking, Lance got that I think, and I was showing that what we're saying about each other can be reversed because it's subjective judgement. Which is a rather un-antagonistic point of view...

On the other hand, I don't think you're joking, and your antagonism toward me is starting to show.

Sorry...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I am merely joking, Lance got that I think, and I was showing that what we're saying about each other can be reversed because it's subjective judgement. Which is a rather un-antagonistic point of view...

On the other hand, I don't think you're joking, and your antagonism toward me is starting to show.

Sorry...

I guess I don't get your humour. I'll try my best to not find you irritating, but I'm not making any promises.

 

[justcurious]

I guess I don't get your humour

This is evident :shy:

I'll try my best to not find you irritating

I am doing the same already

but I'm not making any promises

Right, this one will be hard to keep

 

[Ezechiel]

I was hoping to get some thoughts on where people draw the line for what they believe of people. Mine is that I won't believe fantastical claims without a shred of proof.

From a scientific point of view, you should add... and where there is no current viable framework that could possibly support the claim.

Maybe the pile of garbage, from which we can't currently make sense of, will have value in the future LOL

IMHO, building proof with fantastic tools is the way to go (Kepler-planet finder