Thread: Stark Raving Rant#1(Skeptics, In my Opinion)

Tweet

Ok, so I just wanted to get this etire "thing" off my chest, and figured this would be the perfect place. Right now I do want to explain that I do tend to become passionate about these topics, and as a thinker, I tend to way overthink these things. So please forgive me if I start to ramble, I will do my best to try to stay on topic. It may seem like I just like reading my own thoughts out loud to myself at times, but please dont get the wrong impression, I would enjoy anything but that! I am a very self conscious person in reality, but love feedback, criticism, and am probably the first person who would engage in a debate, so please DOOOOOO comment, rate, offer your views, etc, anywhere you feel fit. I LOVE that! At some point I knew my opinions and views would need to be recorded somewhere, and this thread is intended to not only do that, but to start an entire conversation on these topics as related back to them. I highly encourage you to ask questions, offer your advice, and even maybe your own experiences.

In short, this thread is specifically aimed at the topic of (I use this term loosely) "energy" and time. I have many other views as varried as the people viewing this forum, but I will try to restrain myself from stepping on any toes, bringing religion into the discussion, and staying focused on this topic alone. On the matter of the other subjects, I may at some point post seperate threads relating to my opinions on them, but for now, this is intended to state an opinion and test the waters to see if there are others out there who may see things from my perspective or be able to add to my explanation.

Very sorry if this is taking forever to read, I will attempt to stem my verbose nature and keep things concise. The basic thing I was trying to convey here is within this thread I am going to offer one of my views on why things paranormal exist in the first place, and I would simply like to know if anyone here agrees or disagrees, sees things differently, or has any questions pertaining to my opinions.

Wheeh, well, I will seperate this from my first post, where I will hopefully be able to get things down, but if it ends up too long, I will try to break things down logically. I will try to keep up with this thread as often as possible, and keep adding as long as I have feed back. *pant, pant* *collapses*

And one more thing, I am still very young and inexperienced in the ways of the world, so please dont think I am just some lonely old fifty something who has nothing better to do than try to spark controversey and try to convert everyone to my view point. I am just as unsure about the world as anyone else, and as such my own opinions are not rock solid, and very open to change as I grow and experience the world. So if any thing, PLEASE dont think I am imposing on anyone, and if ever you feel I am overstepping my bounds as a casual observer, please dont hesitate to tell me, because I may not realize something sounds preachy or terrible at the time, but I would NEVER intentionally knock anyone's existing beliefs, EVER! Oh gosh, this is all sounding really long winded, but consider this my disclosure statement, as this entire subject tarries dangerously on the religious side in some veiws, and the last thing I want is to start a holy war

Thank you, and I will be getting my first post out there pronto.
Oh boy, PREPARE FOR AN EPIC DISSERTATION!

(I edited this post's title, because I have decided that this will only be about skeptics at this point, but I hope to post another thread soon about the other big topics out there, so please read on, but realize I just wanted to make sure this first post still existed just so no one felt betrayed or taken aback about my opinion)

Now that we have that out of the way, try to bear with me. I have always been fascinated with the paranormal ever since a young age, and having grown up in a relatively quiet place (though we do get our fair share of controversey due to being so close to the city) my opinions have evolved and grown along with me. I firmly believe that the world, and for that matter the universe is infinitely too large and vastly complicated to ever be understood. No advancement in scientific logic, no leap forward in technology will ever allow us to fully comprehend the mysteries around us before our time comes to an end as a species. We will never know exactly what has come before us, nor will we ever know what will precede us. This is something we must all accept. No matter how hard we try to, we will not ever know everything. Ever.

The entire reason I make this first point is to bring one side of the arguement of reality vs the paranormal to light. Science and it's various facets has always been at the forefront of the crusade against the seemilgly impossible. The mind is truly unlimited, but reality is far more, well, real. When it comes to our own imaginations, anything is possible, but the likelyhood that those things exist in the physical world is slim to none. no matter how you slice it, science has been at the "NO" end of the spectrum for far to long.

Consider flight. For the longest time, it was not only considered common knowledge that the heavens were unreachable, but there was no scientific evidence that suggested such travel would ever be acomplishable. All attempts at achieving even simple flight seemed to fail miserably, and those inventions were the leading technologies of the day. If everyone was asked then to analyze the results, even a simpleton could conclude that space, or even air travel for that matter was simply impossible, as all scientific data had "thoroughly" proven it just so.

As history has clearly proven, it was not the scientific impossiblity of the task that was holding back the achievement, but the means with which to accomplish it that was missing. So, even if just for a moment, a skeptic could consider all memory of what science has proven "false" in the past to be meerly the product of insufficient means by which to gather the truth, a whole world of possibilities opens up.

So much of this world has yet to be explained simply because we may never have the means to do so. There may be thousands of ways to prove a theory works perfectly, but all it takes is one way in which all the pieces do not allign perfectly to "disprove' it. But what if that one way in which it doesnt work is not the rule, but rather the exception?

So many times in our world, a theory that has long been thought to be disproven has been brought back to the surface not in an attempt to find a way in which it works, but instead the way in which it failed.

This was the case with the lonely coelacanth. This fish was long believed to be nothing but fossil, not due to a lack of understanding about the way the fish lived, not due to a lack of interest in paleontology, but simply because of one rule being applied with no considerations about any exceptions. The one rule was that anything that coexisted with the dinosaurs and lived thousands of years ago, with no clear evidence to suggest otherwise must be extinct.

Naturally this is the easy way to look at the world, as scientists do have evidence to suggest hundreds of thousands species of large, earth roaming animals were infact wiped clean off the planet, as no area of land on earth had remained entirely unexplored that is large enough or fertile enough to support such diverse creatures. Thus, if a scientific party announced today that it was going on a search for a herd of seismosaurus, the general reaction would be no different than if they said they wanted to look for cheese on the moon. But yet, the same reaction was given to those who searched for the coelacanth. Just because we havent seen it, and we have no evidence of it's existence, it must not exist. And yet there they waited, living in peace, perhaps partially because of our ignorance in accepting that they could be out there.

I know this all has no clear implications in relating to any specific paranormal topics, but I felt it necesary to give this address first, to all the non believers out there who refuse to believe. I myself am not entirely sure of all that is out there, but I do keep an open mind, and at the very least, I think this is how most people should view the world in general, because as soon as we close our minds to change, or strange new things, only building walls of pride that may someday have to come down. As soon as we are sure we have everything figured out, that is when things tend to change.

I give this arguement partially in vain, because I know there are some souls out there who will always be stuck in their ways, and I feel sorry for them, not because I am looking down on their values, but because they are so severly limiting their own potential for growth.

As the polls show, most of you on here do in fact believe in things unknown for one reason or another, but there is a much larger percentage in the world who do not. unfortunately we are on the "losing" end here, because many people tend to see what they want to see. The media has done nothing too helpful either, portraying most believers in the supernatural as fanatic loons who sit around with their tin foil hats waiting for 2012, and the sad truth is that just based on these odd balls those people who have closed their minds just have more of a reason to stay in their old ways. This stereotyping is an unfortunate reality, but not one that cannot be over come with an even temper and sound logic. Instead of bracing for a fight when one disagrees with you, it is far better to take the high road than see things dissolve into a shouting match.

In short, I hope any skeptics on this forum will be ready to challenge my thoughts, because I really love the art of handily crafting a debate for good fun (oh gosh I am SUCH a nerd). And for those who already have an open mind, please, I urge you to leave a comment on this installment, either about your own experiences with skeptics, or if you consider this view point on the world to be a sound one, or one you already see perfectly.

This was the first post of what I hope to be many on this thread, but I may end up renaming this one or repurposing it speciffically to relate to this one topic.

It really depends on the feedback I get, because this thread in particualr may just have to become one about personal experiences and frustrations with skeptics, in which case I will have to put down my thoughts else where about the various other topics out there (as I said before, UFO's, "energy", psychics, etc.). EIther way thank you for reading if you have got this far, and I hope you enjoyed it! Any way you slice it, this topic was the first I wanted to get out of the way to pave the way into other deeper topics.

Thank you SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much if you stuck with it, and i hope you leave many comments below! (BTW, you may want to go to the bathroom, you have been sitting for quite some time now.)

Man did you go over a great deal of stuff here.

Well to start, I do agree with you a bit but the majority of what you said -- in my opinion -- is a bit slanted, narrow-minded, and cliche. We've all been told things, from a young age, that simply aren't true. Stuff like "everyone thought the world was flat before Columbus sailed to the New World" May people still believe this, but that fact of the matter is that for 100s of years before Columbus people knew the world was round. Coincidentally Sir Martin Behaim (an explorer and scientist) invented the first Globe in 1492-- the same year Columbus made his trek.

Flight? You have to look no further than a book about Leonardo DiVinci to know that many people of his era thought flight was possible yet didn't have the technology to obtain it just yet.

Extinct animals? There are dozens of lifeforms that are alive today that have walked (or swam) with Dinosaures. The ocean is vast and a great deal of its depths remain unexplored, the chance remains open that they may yet uncover more creatures that have survived since that time and science is open to that possibilty. Turtles? Sharks?

I agree with you that Science does, at times, get a little full of itself and is quick to pass judgment on FACT. But when that FACT is disproven they are just as quick to retract that statement and make like it never happened.

Science isn't as Black and White as you make it out to be. If presented with compelling evidence they couldn't be considered scientists if they didn't look for a truth or answer. But the fact of the matter is that EVER SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE paranormal researchers have ever uncovered has been fully proven false by the science community.

Here, let me give you an example.

-----------------
I have a glass of water that I set next to the window on a very hot and sunny day. I leave the water in my empty house and go to the store. When I return the water is gone yet the glass remains. A ghost must have drank it.

Science says that the heat and sun caused the water to evaporate.
------------------

Basically, everything that Paranormal Researchers claim as evidence is just an empty glass of water that has a real world answer.

It's a good read "darkpenguincowboy" thanks for stating your veiwpoint, it's pretty much common knowledge.

I also read "HDawesome" reply, that was interesting also.
One part of it did stand out when you said...

But the fact of the matter is that EVER SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE paranormal researchers have ever uncovered has been fully proven false by the science community.

When I read something as broad sweeping as that statement, I have to question who really is "narrow minded" here. But, that being said, it is your opinion and thats all good.

Myself, I don't always like everything thrown into one box, especially a box thats built by someone else.

Well, this sucks, I had written out an entire response to your post HD, but my account logged me out at some point, so I lost the entire thing, so the rewrite will have to wait until tommorrow. Sorry, I really do have things to say, maybe my computer just doenst want them out there

And carnagemaster, I really hate trying to tie all this up with a bow too, as when it comes to print and written word, one person's interperetation of "lead" could be another's poisonous metalic substance. It really is so much easier to debate in person, especially when it comes to complex subjects like this. Oh well, like I said, as long as there is a diolouge taking place, hopefully we can clear up any miscommunications. Oh, and this is really a big step for me, as I would much rather agree with another person on this than have to "lead the way" so to speak. But I looked around and this seemed like the place to begin this discussion, as no matter how hard I looked I couldnt find an existing thread about this subject (which would certainly fall in this catagory) and is rife with potential for some wonderful thought provoking discussion( Ok, that sounded cheesy enough to cover a nacho platter, but as I said in the above post, it is very late, and I cant quite figure the best way to put it)And btw, this is the only part of the original response that I was able to save tonight, but HD, hold fast, your response will come!

I don't think you really have a firm grasp on the sciences. Science doesn't prove right or wrong, it proves likely and unlikely. This is a strength of sciences, not a weakness. As well, maybe you're mislabeling people, "skeptics" will allow the possibility of something but are not firm, they are unsure. Citing instances where science has been proven wrong in the past does not make a good argument for getting skeptics on your side.

For example, mathematical proof and scientific proof are very different. 2+2 will always equal the same thing, numbers will always be numbers. You can "prove" a species is likely extinct by covering every square inch of the earth looking for it, until one pops up out of a hole and says "Sup dudes?". Science changes itself, and using the best information available, uses it to move forward. If something is super unlikely to happen, say, throwing an apple up into an air and it staying there, it only makes sense to assume it will continue doing so until you have readily available and repeatable evidence it will not. There is no "It must not exist", it is "this is unlikely to exist." Again, not a weakness.

That is why sciences will continue to scorn the paranormal. It's a learning process that has worked so far to bring us to the moon and send our probes to the deepest of the ocean's depths, it has cured countless ailments and brought us the ability to look at things beyond our own space that are so far away that our great-great grandchildren wouldn't live to see it if we started the voyage today. It is very unlikely that ghosts or aliens will ever be taken more seriously than the thought an apple will stay in the sky when thrown, until a haunt occurs where ghosts can be studied by multiple groups.

Further, "The one rule was that anything that coexisted with the dinosaurs and lived thousands of years ago, with no clear evidence to suggest otherwise must be extinct." there is no such rule, perhaps to laymen there would be this thought and surprise at how much is a holdover from ancient times. The Coelacanth (which was kind enough to show up in my textbook, so I am familiar with) was thought to be extinct because of lack of sighting. "There is no evidence to show this still exists." is the reasoning as to why it was thought to be extinct, not "Oh it was from the TIME OF THE DINOSAURS so it must be extinct."

You continue: "Thus, if a scientific party announced today that it was going on a search for a herd of seismosaurus, the general reaction would be no different than if they said they wanted to look for cheese on the moon. But yet, the same reaction was given to those who searched for the coelacanth."

This is just patently false. The first specimen was found in the 30's by fishermen, and having a specimen would give extreme credit to any attempt to find more, no scientific community would degrade anyone for going out into the field for this. If you could prove such a thing occurred, I'd be very happy to read it.

I agree with HDawesome, mostly, except for his glass of water example. Science would say it would have to take in temperature, length of time exposed, thickness/type of glass etc. and recreate it to be able to safely say that's what did it

Ok, sorry again about the wait, I just got the chance now to sit back down and get back started. I'll try my best to remember what I wrote last night, though I will modify it for discobandit's post too. Here goes:

First off, let me say thank you so much to all of you for responding, and remaining civil about the subject, stating your opinions clearly, it is always nice to see that people are willing to have a conbversation instead of shouting their lungs out.

HD, I am sorry if I came off as a bit pretentious and narrow minded, although understandably it is hard to avoid at least some hint of that when you are stating an opinion (i'll try to avoid that in the future) Anyway, back to the post. I guess the big issue to address here is the unfortunate mixup I seem to have caused about the rigidity/flexibility of science in general. If I ever have one complaint about modern technology, it is that as we are moving forward, we are becoming increasingly more isolated. And as we move further from face to face interaction, the potential for miscommunication has skyrocketed (word?). Lets see if I can say this the way it sounds in my head. When I get started writing, I tend to just keep going based off of what is currently being process in my head. This means no matter if I had written down what went through my head a few seconds ago, the new thought that is in my head may go down just the same, which sometimes can lead to confusion (seeing a common theme here people).

I figure this is a good time too to clarify the usage of the word skeptic in this thread. In the true sense of the word, a skeptic is indeed readily open to new possibilities, but is often also highly critical (not necessarily in a negative way) always looking for a "rational" explanation. The usage in this thread, however, is not intended to portray the group in a bad light, but rather is being used for lack of a better word for the decidedly more negative closed-minded set. These are the people who are unwilling to keep an open mind to new possabilities. I in no way meant to insinuate that all skeptics follow this thought process, but simply was expressing my annoyance with this clearly inefficient way of thinking which is still being used by some. I really hope I havent come off as trying to stereotype all skeptics as unwilling to cooperate, cause as I said before, I realy hate when people use the thoughts or actions of a small section of a group to characterize everyone.

Basically I had been describing science just from the vantage point of how a skeptic, in my opinion, abuses "just the facts". It is not the science itself that is black and white, but rather the people citing the data that have grossly oversimplified the field. The sad truth of the matter is that the clarification sentence was somehow lost in my jumbled thoughts. In the sense of true scientific "fact" all possililities must be considered, with a hypothesis being readily altered when suitable evidence is brought to light. When used rigidly only to disprove, it is precisely this side that is ignored entirely.

It is this usage of only the facts (not by the scientific community, but the naysayers) that brought me into the discussion of flight. I hesitated when considering using real world examples for fear of, as you rightly pointed out, becoming cliched and falling victim to unfortunate misconceptions. Sadly, just as I can become lost in my own thoughts, far too frequently I find myself listing off buried down facts that under normal lucidity I would know far better than to ever bring up. Upon review of those statements, all I can do is cringe, as I myself have now fallen to the same level group I criticized toward the end of my first post, spouting out false, but commonly accepted information just to prove a point. (OH NO, I'm no better than FOX NEWS!) Ugh, well, though I can only appologize at this point for the lack of editing on my part, I do have a few points to clarify about the intentions of the examples (as we have now established, I suck at finding practical evidence)

Ok, I think I have it. The examples that I used were not intended to be used literally with every detail being exact, but rather I used them because they basically represented juthe point I was trying to make. Looking back I should have just avoided the continuity confusion by creating an entirely hypothetical situation that would have worked just as well. That would have then also opened the door to, "Well I can make up facts too!", so I guess all I can do it try to create a more definite destinction between inended facts and examples. Oh well, like I said, 20/20 hindsight.

In the discussion of flight (which to be honest, is probably the most cliched of them all) I do have to admit my mind immediately jumped to DaVinchi (A man who would require an entire new forum to do justice to). The point I was trying to make there was again about how this particular hard evidence approach has been shown time and again to be full of holes. In it's simplest wording, I was trying to show that if a person was trying to say, "I believe flight is impossible because all attempts at it have failed so far, end of story", refusing to remain open to the possibilities considered by dreamers and visionaries like DaVinchi, is the wrong way to go about things. Again, it is not the science that is resticting the flow of progress, but instead the person. (Not to get caught up in details, it is unclear when the first manned flight occurred, but remember this is a general example, not an exact history lesson)

Finally, in response to the well....."interesting" statement, I would have to agree with carnagemaster, that such a very general and, well, bold statement may be a tad bit overkill, but there is also one major flaw with the arguement. essentially, most "paranormal" occurences are classified as such due to the mysterious and often untracable origins, leading many to label them unexplainable. Thus, if said event was suddenly fully understood, inside and out, the event would no longer be considered "paranormal", making it a moot point. I do understand where you are coming from though, but quite simply many things that were once considered meerly legend or folklore have indeed been discovered by science, but now that the curtain has been pulled back, we realize there is nothing supernatural about them, turning the once paranormal into the very normal.

Thanks again for remaining civil, and reading back what I have written so far, I am beginning to fear that I may be coming off as defensive, but please dont get the wrong idea. I hope to hear back from you all, and even welcome in a few more opinions.

Ok, the first thing I am going to say is that if anyone, scientist or not, came forward with concrete proof that "Ghosts" exist then they would probably have the Nobel prize renamed after them. The implications of something like that would completely change our view of the world.

In saying that, if any of this 'evidence' was even remotely credible don't you think you'd have credited science professionals turning everything upside down to uncover this?

The fact that the vast majority of those in the Science Community look at "Paranormal Investigators" a fools and charlatans says something.

And even though it brought me a bit of heat, I'll say it again, EVERY SINGLE THING THAT PARANORMAL INVESTIGATORS PRESENT AS PROOF HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG BY ACTUAL EXPERTS. Science has proved these people wrong so much they are tired of doing it. Most of the Science Community now simply dismisses all of this because it is the same thing over and over again. Now, that there is no oversight and science doesn't care enough to discredit it (for the millionth time), 'Researchers' run wild and call everything "Paranormal Evidence" cause no one, in the know, is gonna waste their time looking at it.

They always have these EMF Meters with the blinking lights. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT GHOSTS CREATE ELECTROMAGNETIC READINGS!!! ( .. and so does every other thing in your house from your TV and Computer to the Wires in your walls, floor, and ceiling.) I mean, should I bring up the evaperated water story again?

Look, I am not 'in the know' on these things and more than likely you aren't either. If someone walked up to me with a picture of a ghostly girl in a window I would probably say, "Yeah, that looks like a ghost to me." But if you bring that same photo to a photographer or developer they'd probably tell you exactly what it is right then and there. A Double Exposure, a reflection in the glass, or a Photoshop creation.

What I am getting at is that us "Regular Joes" looking or listening to something could neither prove nor disprove that this is something paranormal. But they're are people that can, they are called scientists. The went to school for a million years to become scientists, they are paid millions of dollars because they are scientists, they will problem go on to lead very successful lives as scientists until the day they die .. at which time they are all but certain they won't be returning as ghosts.

Some of the biggest Debunkers of the Paranormal have been people who were quite talented at making things appear different than they really were or pulling the wool over someones eyes. Of these, the the big ones (or 4 really) were Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, and Penn & Teller. As the saying goes, "You can't Bullsh** a Bullsh**er"

I have seen Penn yank off Teller's arm and then the disembodied arm of Teller began to strangle Penn--- I have seen David Copperfield climb through the great wall of china and fly around in a glass enclosed box--- Houdini entertained the world with things that bordered on Witchcraft.

Paranormal Investigators and these men have both shown people things that are Fantastic. But unlike Paranormal Investigators these men won't sit there and tell you what they've just shown is real.

Closing this, I propose a question to you. Do some research for old Paranormal photos or evidence. Look at them and then tell me that you honestly believe that what you have found is real. It all looks fake as hell.

Then you are presented with a second question. Could it be that Ghosts are just starting to show up now because people have been faking them so long that they are PO'ed and want to show what a real ghost is? Or is it that Technology has advanced enough that its flat out easier to make a convincing fake?

================
In the discussion of flight (which to be honest, is probably the most cliched of them all) I do have to admit my mind immediately jumped to DaVinchi (A man who would require an entire new forum to do justice to). The point I was trying to make there was again about how this particular hard evidence approach has been shown time and again to be full of holes. In it's simplest wording, I was trying to show that if a person was trying to say, "I believe flight is impossible because all attempts at it have failed so far, end of story", refusing to remain open to the possibilities considered by dreamers and visionaries like DaVinchi, is the wrong way to go about things. Again, it is not the science that is resticting the flow of progress, but instead the person. (Not to get caught up in details, it is unclear when the first manned flight occurred, but remember this is a general example, not an exact history lesson)
================

But science doesn't believe '"Ghosts" are impossible because all attempts have failed so far' they believe they are impossible because the theory behind the idea of a ghost is unsound and everything that has been presented as proof of a ghost has been explained away with an "Earthy" Explanation.

The same isn't true with flight. The theory behind flight left it open for possibility. Even the most passionate arguments against human flight couldn't deny that a bird can fly and a strong wind could give lift.

To use another old world instance, people have tried and failed countless times over history to turn Iron to Gold. Could it be that Science just doesn't understand? That they haven't tried enough times? or could it be that it is just Impossible to turn Iron into Gold?

Oh, and before you tell me that it is possible, its not. The difference int the Atomic Mass of Gold and Iron is far to great to get Iron to turn into Gold.