|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4..14~15~16 [Next] | ||||||||||
aligator Inner circle Canada 2044 Posts |
I too agree with Tony's analysis. Couldn't have said it any better, so I won't.
|
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 08:45, Davit Sicseek wrote: I respectfully disagree. What shuts down debate are the pseudo-skeptics claiming they speak for reason, logic, and science and that anyone who dares to stray from the dogma of their materialist religion must be mocked, decried, insulted, and metaphorically destroyed. I would note, here, that your attempt to manipulate words has failed. You write about someone who is "*simply* skeptical of the existence of ghosts" [emphasis added] and compare that to someone who is part of some mythical "pro-ghost movement," making your imaginary sceptic a lone warrior against an army of "pro-ghosters." In reality, however, the simple skeptic isn't simply skeptical. Rather, he is intent on not letting others believe as they will and insisting that they follow his materialist religion. Heresy to the pseudo-skeptical dogma must be rooted out and crushed. You've also made a false dichotomy of ghost skeptic vs. pro-ghoster. You don't allow for anything in between much as some Christian fundamentalists believe either you're a Christian like they are or you're on the side of the devil. In fact, the pseudo-skeptic dogma also attacks those of real skeptics who aren't "pro-ghosters" but who want more information before they make up their minds. It is the pseudo-skeptic who is intent on cutting off debate, not the people who are seeking more information. And I would remind you of the words of Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to Investigation." Finally, what you are calling the "anti-sceptic camp" (it's always good to identify the enemies of a religion as an amorphous group) is actually the group standing up for true skepticism, logic, science, and reason against the pseudo-skeptics (who have hijacked the term "skeptic") who should more accurately be called debunkers with pre-conceived beliefs as strongly held as any member of a fundamentalist religion. Hamlet Act 1. Scene V:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. |
|||||||||
Mind Guerrilla Inner circle Queens, NY 2670 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 08:45, Davit Sicseek wrote: Sincerity is everything. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. Quote:
On 2012-03-10 10:42, mastermindreader wrote: To be fair, he said "peddlers of woo-woo." Peddling woo is only legal in certain parts of Nevada. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I guess I'm off to Nevada, then.
|
|||||||||
backinblack Special user 910 Posts |
The coolest statement right here was:
"It's doubly sad that some feel the only way to enlighten the public is to "inform them with the truth." sure - enlightening people is only made with telling them not the truth.. lol Quote:
On 2012-03-08 00:57, Tony Iacoviello wrote: cool.. |
|||||||||
Mind Guerrilla Inner circle Queens, NY 2670 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 13:34, backinblack wrote: By Jove, I think he's got it! Please note that my post was FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Bob, its not a preconception. Post-conception if you must. I should also add that some don't believe they are peddling woo - but in my view they are. Still, better stop using the word 'woo' - 'they' hate that
dmkraig: I'm afraid I don't find any of your respectful disagreement convincing. I already explained very clearly that those opposed to the skeptics (in the Shermer sense of the word) regularly point to the absense of radical scepticism in anyone who is incredulous to their beliefs. The result of which is to shut down debate. I can't make it much simpler. If I say - "I am very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest" and you reply "Call yourself a skeptic? You are a bit selective! You aren't even skeptical about the existence of the forest! How do you KNOW its there? And if you don't KNOW that - how would you know anything at all about ghosts!". It that line of questioning which is already evident in THIS thread, and evident in no doubt hundreds of others elsewhere on the Café - if that isn't shutting down meaningful debate, I don't know what it. Quote:
What shuts down debate are the pseudo-skeptics claiming they speak for reason, logic, and science and that anyone who dares to stray from the dogma of their materialist religion must be mocked, decried, insulted, and metaphorically destroyed. Don't see any debate shutting down here. Plenty of scope for disagreement. If you think there are pixies at the bottom of the garden I will mock you. You are free to continue debating me about it. I think the real bone of contention is that most supernatural claims don't hold up well against reason, logic and science. Of course you will no doubt claim that my very working definition of 'science' is misguided - but then we are back to whether the forest is there or not. You have imagined that I have created a false dichotomy between pro/anti ghosters. Obviously there are people that are undecided and even those that have never given it a moment's thought. There are of course also degrees in the pro and anti camps. Imagined drama eitherway, Quote:
It is the pseudo-skeptic who is intent on cutting off debate, not the people who are seeking more information. And I would remind you of the words of Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to Investigation." How much investigation should one do into ghosts before concluding that there is such flimsy evidence for their existence that one should live life as if they don't? I assume there must be some form of supernatural phenomena that you don't think exists? How would you as a skeptic of that phenomena go about reducing what you consider harmful belief in it? Maybe you can teach the "pseudo-skeptics" a thing or two
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Davit-
Just to play devil's advocate... You wrote, "I think the real bone of contention is that most supernatural claims don't hold up well against reason, logic and science." Are you therefore conceding that there are SOME (but not "most") supernatural claims that DO hold up well against reason, logic and science? And if so, which claims are those? :eek: |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
I'm not conceding that. I suppose I was trying to nuance my language - I don't know the full spectrum of super natural claims after all. I might add however that claims that do hold up well against the above mentioned typically aren't considered supernatural any longer.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I understand that. I didn't think you really meant to say that "some" supernatural claims have held up. But for the sake of maintaining clarity I would note that there is a difference between the "paranormal" and the "supernatural." The former is not a synonym for the latter. Supernatural claims are, by definition, beyond the the boundaries of scientific explanation or exploration. Paranormal claims are not.
Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Point taken. Going even more off topic, I haven't the foggiest how anyone would know whether a phenomena was paranormal or if it was supernatural.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
Quote: Very TRUE!!!!!On 2012-03-10 12:01, dmkraig wrote:
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 15:39, Davit Sicseek wrote: It can be difficult, I admit. But if the claim is made that a deity planned and executed all of creation, that deity would, of necessity, exist outside of the parameters of his creation. Thus, the claim would be beyond scientific exploration. If, on the other hand, I state that I can fundamentally alter the molecular structure of objects simply by concentrating on them, that claim can be tested. Until that claim is either verified or debunked, the phenomena that I exhibit can be considered paranormal because it apparently is in conflict with the laws of physics. (Just as a UFO is really just that until you identify what it actually is.) So the difference, then, between the paranormal and the supernatural is that the former can be subjected to scientific examination while the latter cannot. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Agreed. But presumably a good deal of paranormal or supernatural phenomena COULD be either. Your case of the deity is certainly clear-cut, but many other phenomena could potentially be either and their classification would presumably depend on the manner in which a claim for their existence was put forward. For example if one was to advance the claim that they met a ghost and this ghost told them that they existed outside of the laws of nature, then that would indicate a ghost of the supernatural variety. Contrastingly, they may say that the ghost told them that they are natural - but the world's current understanding of physics is unable to account for them - this would imply a paranormal ghost.
Am I misunderstanding anything here? And if not, I wonder what the usefulness of the distinction is in practice?
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
dmkraig Inner circle 1949 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 13:41, Davit Sicseek wrote: That's up to you. Quote:
I already explained very clearly that those opposed to the skeptics (in the Shermer sense of the word) regularly point to the absense of radical scepticism in anyone who is incredulous to their beliefs. The result of which is to shut down debate. I can't make it much simpler. If I say - "I am very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest" and you reply "Call yourself a skeptic? You are a bit selective! You aren't even skeptical about the existence of the forest! How do you KNOW its there? And if you don't KNOW that - how would you know anything at all about ghosts!". It that line of questioning which is already evident in THIS thread, and evident in no doubt hundreds of others elsewhere on the Café - if that isn't shutting down meaningful debate, I don't know what it. Ah! Once again we're confronted with the good ol' straw man argument. Here you think you know what someone who disagrees with a debunker would say, and then you denounce it. So let me ask you, "How many people have you said that you are "very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest" and received that supposed answer? One? Five? None? Sorry, but at best that's called anecdotal evidence and is not scientifically acceptable. Second, I have never heard debunkers say, "I am very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest." Instead, they say--and I've heard this from dozens of debunkers over they years--"You're a naive idiot for thinking there are ghosts in the forest. Anyone with an iota of logic knows they aren't there." Nicer ones would simply say, "You're wrong." The former denies discussion by not being willing to accept any data and adding bullying and insults while the later just refuses to look at any data. However, supposed a debunker did come up to a real skeptic and said, "I am very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest." A real skeptic wouldn't say even one of the things you put in his or her mouth. Instead, such a person would ask for scientific research to be done to prove it one way or the other. I have to reject your claim. It is the pseudo-skepic who shuts down discussion and debate, not those who face the pseudo-skeptics closed mind and bullying tactics. Quote:
"What shuts down debate are the pseudo-skeptics claiming they speak for reason, logic, and science and that anyone who dares to stray from the dogma of their materialist religion must be mocked, decried, insulted, and metaphorically destroyed." <sigh> This is EXACTLY what I said. First you make up a straw man. Without evidence one way or another a real skeptic would not say there are pixies at the bottom of the garden. But let's say he or she does have evidence to support this claim. Do you ask to see the evidence? No. Are you willing to discuss it? No. Are you willing to debate it? No. What will you do? You mock the person. This is clearly an attempt to belittle someone so they can't discuss or debate with you or anyone else. You're following Cicero's edict that "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff." You claim to be representing "reason, logic and science," exactly as the fundamentalist religionists say they are representing reason, logic and science and will not discuss anything that gets in the way of their predetermined belief system. Thank you for your statement. You have not only proved that what I posted was exactly correct, you have given a perfect example of how pseudo-skeptics actually have predetermined beliefs and will do ANYTHING to prevent someone from daring to disturb their order. Your argument sounds exactly like the ones given by the Church during the Inquisition. I'm sure the Church told Galileo that his stupid claims about the Earth going around the Sun "don't hold up well against reason, logic and science." Quote:
You have imagined that I have created a false dichotomy between pro/anti ghosters. Obviously there are people that are undecided and even those that have never given it a moment's thought. There are of course also degrees in the pro and anti camps. Imagined drama eitherway, I'm sorry. Please go back and re-read what I posted. I did NOT say you created a "false dichotomy between pro/anti ghosters." I wrote nothing of the sort. I DID write that you have created a mythical "pro-ghost movement" in order to give your "anti-ghosters" something to fight. This is a typical trick of fundamentalists: Divide the people. Set up camps of US (the good guys) and THEM (the bad guys). In this way you provide a common evil enemy that the people wearing white can fight. Quote:
"It is the pseudo-skeptic who is intent on cutting off debate, not the people who are seeking more information. And I would remind you of the words of Herbert Spencer: "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to Investigation." I see. So you think that real science should be limited by time and money. I imagine some people were also asking how much money and how long should we spend to try and find a vaccine for Polio. After all, there was only flimsy evidence that such a vaccine could ever be created. Quote:
I assume there must be some form of supernatural phenomena that you don't think exists? Sure. For one thing, you're attempting to read my mind. That ability within you clearly does not exist! Quote:
How would you as a skeptic of that phenomena go about reducing what you consider harmful belief in it? Maybe you can teach the "pseudo-skeptics" a thing or two I am not a "skeptic of...phenomena." REAL skeptics aren't skeptical of any particular phenomena. They are simply skeptical. It is an approach to reality, not an attack on any particular phenomenon or set of phenomena. When a phenomenon is presented, a real skeptic would say, "Let's see if we can prove if the phenomenon is real or not." A pseudo-skeptic begins by saying "I'm skeptical of that phenomenon and will do whatever I can to prove that it doesn't exist." This goes back to the real issue: Why does the pseudo-skeptic care? Frequently, they'll give the answer that they're just trying to protect people from being hurt. My response is that more people are hurt by lying politicians in one month than have been hurt by people believing in unusual phenomena in 100 years. Where are your freakin' priorities? If you want to really help people, volunteer at a food bank. Go door-to-door collecting money for Doctors Without Borders or some other charity. The "we're only trying to help people" argument just doesn't fly. So why are the pseudo-skeptics so intent on supporting their position while mocking and bullying anyone who attempts to even suggest that there might be something to discuss? It's because their pseudo-skepticism, their archaic form of materialism (I call it "Scientism") is actually their ersatz religion. The pseudo-skeptic will use the same techniques on heretics toward their religion of Scientism that some fundamentalist churches use on anyone who dares to question the church's dogma. You say you will mock someone who disagrees with you. I say that you might remember that a mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's open. The mind of the fundamentalist religionist and the follower of fundamentalist Scientism keeps their parachute closed. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-10 18:49, Davit Sicseek wrote: In practice it is very useful AND pragmatic because it allows for scientific exploration of paranormal events to proceed separate and apart from debates about metaphysics. Researchers and skeptics alike need only point out, correctly, that such matters are outside the realm of science. Good thoughts, Bob |
|||||||||
Slim King Eternal Order Orlando 18012 Posts |
I think Dmkraig has successfully disected any Pseudo-Skeptic dogmatism. He is 100% correct. And you only need to pull out the dictionary to define Paranormal... Not Scientifically Explainable....
Paranormal events occure all the time! Pseudo-Skeptics are basically frauds pretending to be true skeptics for fun and mostly profit.
THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSE TO TEST FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS.. The Worlds Foremost Authority on Houdini's Life after Death.....
|
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts |
Dmkraig: I give up. I've re-read my posts and I'm quite confident that it is clear to anyone reading what I am getting at. It is also clear that you missing my point (or refusing to accept it.) I'm going to keep this short...
My creation to pro and anti groups is not a sinister piece of propaganda - just a simulated conversation. I don't accept that I characterised the likely conversations - anti-sceptics have already tried to reduce regular scepticism of the supernatural to radical scepticism of near-universally shared assumptions in this very thread. Clearly such words DO come out of their mouths. Likewise, you've still not shown how sceptics shut down debate. Certainly if someone claims to see a Ghost and has no EVIDENCE then a sceptic is likely to have little interest in debating with them. After all, the human senses are fallible. (Cue the anti-sceptic advancing another radical scepticism argument). Quote:
However, supposed a debunker did come up to a real skeptic and said, "I am very skeptical that there are ghosts walking around in the forest." A real skeptic wouldn't say even one of the things you put in his or her mouth. Instead, such a person would ask for scientific research to be done to prove it one way or the other. Only you are seeking to prove a negative. You can't "prove" that there are no ghosts walking around in the forest. I know this sounds harsh, but its hard to have this discussion with you until you have learned a bit more about logic and the different notions of scepticism. Plenty of good philosophy books dealing with both. Bob: Quote:
In practice it is very useful AND pragmatic because it allows for scientific exploration of paranormal events to proceed separate and apart from debates about metaphysics. Researchers and skeptics alike need only point out, correctly, that such matters are outside the realm of science. Yes, I'm clear on the principle differentiation - but not the practice. How would a researcher of sceptic have any idea whether phenomena X was paranormal or supernatural? I see a bright light in the sky - is that god directly creating a super-natural phenomena? Or is it something paranormal that science, logic and reason simply hasn't been able to explain? Seems the majority of claims could be presented either way.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
This is maybe more a Spooky question / reflective thought...
But if one could do the following - or at least show it can be done through theatrical arts and illusions: Turn water into wine, walk on water, bring a dead thing to life - would Christianity and its spin offs be clearly all a fraud? Turn a stick into a snake, turn water into blood, make water flow from a stone - would Judiasm all be a fraud? etc etc Spiritualism / Paganism / whatever you want to call it can be done "legit" in terms people truly believe it.... as much as people will exploit it. Note: I am not talking about scienctific proof... just about treating readers and the like in the same light as other spiritual/religions One of my fav films is NIGHTMARE ALLEY - for many reasons - but one cool theme that runs throughout is although the carnies seem to use things like mentalism and card readings to exploit the non-carnies... they still believe in it themselves... watch out for the hanged man card!!!! Just like bad doctors, bad magicians, bad any profession - people remember that more than the ones who are good. IMHOOOOOOO
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
Mind Guerrilla Inner circle Queens, NY 2670 Posts |
Quote:
On 2012-03-11 10:35, Dr Spektor wrote: Or, to bring it back to the specific topic: Just because Paul Zenon learned tarot and palm reading from a magician doesn't mean that these arts can't be learned through more respected halls of learning where people can be taught to refine and enhance their gifts without introducing any trickery. I'm a self-educated psychic surgeon so I can't recommend any particular school. I'll leave it to others on this board to discuss their experiences at such institutions. Quote:
On 2012-03-11 06:29, Davit Sicseek wrote: By Jove, I think he's got it! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Fake Tarot and Palm Readers - Interesting worldwide (3 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4..14~15~16 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.14 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |