Evidence, proof and prove

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But truth is a relative condition in a universe that's far bigger and more complex than any human can comprehend. Which, it seems to me, would make honesty the greater pursuit. And believing in things that we can't really know to be true or that are only true from a relative perspective seems like it would be dishonest, to me.

For example, I'm a theist that does not 'believe in' God/gods because I feel it would be dishonest of me to presume the existence or nature of something I can't personally know or understand. I can trust in the possibility of it, but I can't honestly 'believe it' to be so. Because I also have to respect the possibility that it may not be so.

But trusting in reasoned probability is not "belief". Nor does it require that we believe anything.

That makes no sense to me. Why would I adopt as true a proposition that I can't and don't know to be true? Especially when I don't need to. I can simply choose to trust that it's probably true and act accordingly. No belief necessary.
... Because I can't get the truth. It's beyond the scope of my humanity. The best I can get is relative truthfulness: knowing that 'this' is true relative to 'that' being true.

I think we need to define "belief". I define belief as what we are convinced is true or not true. I do concede that we cannot know with 100% certainty that something is true or not true, but that does not mean we cannot have beliefs about what is true and what is not true. Truth exists. For example the moon either exists or does not exist. One of these is correct. We can be convinced with 99.999...% confidence that the moon does exist through good evidence and epistemology. I leave out 100% because no one has solved solipsism. I think you would say you think that the moon probably exists but would not call that a belief. You think a belief is knowing 100% certain. This is where I disagree.

I don't understand how you can be a theist and not be convinced a god exists.

Please let me know where I am misrepresenting your case.

 

[sun rise]

Human nature or not, belief is not a requirement of reasonable or effective action. And in fact, it very often is an impediment to reasonable effective action. So I can't help wondering why we're so obsessed with achieving it.

I suspect the difference between our viewpoints is semantic - we're using the word "belief" differently. My use of the word is from the general meaning:

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. "his belief in the value of hard work"
2. something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. "we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"

So I \]write that you believe in the value of reasonable action.

 

[PureX]

I suspect the difference between our viewpoints is semantic - we're using the word "belief" differently. My use of the word is from the general meaning:

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. "his belief in the value of hard work"
2. something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. "we're prepared to fight for our beliefs"

So I \]write that you believe in the value of reasonable action.

The problem here is that acceptance and belief are not at all the same things. A firmly held opinion or conviction is not about "acceptance". It's about surety. A declaration of belief is a declaration of surety. (Not just mere acceptance.) Who believes? I believe. What do I believe? That I am right! Whatever the subject is; what I am believing about that subject is that my understanding of it is right. Belief is the presumption of rightness. Belief is not mere acceptance. It's surety. Otherwise we would simply say, and mean, "I accept that "X" is true." But we don't say that, because we don't mean that. We say "I believe that "X" is true", because that's what it means to believe: that we feel certain that we are right about "X" being true.

It is this surety that I am objecting to when I am objecting to what I see as our obsession with achieving belief.

 

[Heyo]

I don't see how a person insisting that what happened to them happened to them is a problem, except perhaps for the very cynical who assume the default human behavior is lying (which it isn't).

The default behaviour of humans is interpreting data. They report their experience, not facts. I guess you mean that (based on your statement below) but as you have formulated it, I do in fact question what really happened to them if they report an event that can't, in my experience, be true (or is exceptionally unlikely).
E.g. people have reported to have been abducted by aliens. I believe they truly believe that it happened. I also believe that it didn't happen and that they are mistaken in their interpretation of their experience or memory.

Accepting that someone really did (and yes, objectively) have an experience is distinct from accepting that person's interpretation of what happened. And I blame proselytizing religions for making many in our culture conflate these two things.

I blame lack of education in psychology and an irrational fear of being or being seen as insane when one's memory isn't factual paired with a lot of confirmation bias.
Human perception and memory is very unreliable. Most people don't accept that.

 

[Polymath257]

How about basic courtesy, common sense, utter necessity, and generally not assuming everyone is lying their face off to you about everything?

Which is why I generally assume the person is being honest about their experiences even if they are mistaken about their interpretation of those experiences. People are generally not trying to be dishonest. But they can still be mistaken.

 

[Polymath257]

To summarize the OP which I agree with:

Absence is evidence is not *always* evidence of absence. But it *can* be.

For example, the absence of evidence for an adult elephant in my room is definitely evidence of the absence of that elephant.

If the evidence is to be expected, then absence of that evidence *is* evidence of the absence.

 

[Audie]

Belief is built into our nature. We believe that if we go to college, we'll benefit (but not all do). We believe that if we get married, we'll be happy. We believe that if our political party wins, the country will be better off. We believe that if we go to work, we'll paid what we're owed.

Some beliefs are justified on the basis of evidence including scientific beliefs about proofs which are sometimes overturned by new proofs. Some are justified on the basis of personal experience.

And many of us continue to believe some of those or other things in spite of the evidence that proves such belief is not always warranted.

There is belief and there is, Belief.

Believers are into Belief; it's what they do, Believe things.

The rest of us try to be sensible, and do provisional acceptance.

A researcher who does Belief has went
off the rails, soon to be disgraced and
unemployed.

A "theist" who admits of doubt or ( shudder)
only provisionally accepts "spiritual" / supernatural stuff is no Believer or
theist, but ( double snudder) a skeptic.

 

[John53]

I don't think it was "tough love" when some Christians called me a witch and threatened my life or when other Christians accused me of being demon-possessed and said I'd burn in hell because they believe I talk to demons. A furious skeptic who cruelly ridiculed me and tried to call me out in front of a crowd of people during my paranormal investigation because he was angry that I was persuading them that the paranormal is real doesn't strike me as "tough love" either. There are justified reasons why I will not debate skeptics.

I can't speak for Christians and don't know the details of the sceptic but maybe I can shed some light on why he/she may have done it. I had an elderly relative who had their meagre life savings stolen by a supposed psychic. I'm not saying all psychics are charlatans nor am I trying to besmirch you, I'm offering the other side of the coin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How about basic courtesy, common sense, utter necessity, and generally not assuming everyone is lying their face off to you about everything?

Why jump to such an accusation? People do not have to be lying when it comes to that sort of belief, they may merely be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To summarize the OP which I agree with:

A better statement is "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. There are cases where absence of evidence is clear evidence of absence.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I can't speak for Christians and don't know the details of the sceptic but maybe I can shed some light on why he/she may have done it. I had an elderly relative who had their meagre life savings stolen by a supposed psychic. I'm not saying all psychics are charlatans nor am I trying to besmirch you, I'm offering the other side of the coin.

If you're referring to the skeptic who mocked me and attempted to call me out, I understand why he did so. He wasn't lashing out at me because he was upset with someone else who pretended to be a psychic or psychic medium but wasn't. His friend later told me that he lashed out like that because he was grieving the sudden and unexpected death of his twin brother. He didn't want to be there, but his friend and cousin persuaded him to accompany them to the location. I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he took out his bottled-up frustration on me because I was the lead paranormal investigator at the time and my investigation had drawn a small crowd. His friend apologized, but he never did, despite being chastised for his behavior. I've never seen him again.

If you're referring to the Christians who called me a witch and threatened my life, you can read my previous post here that explains the situation, as well as my previous post here that explains the event that led up to what happened to me. The other Christians who accused me of being demon-possessed and said I'd burn in hell for "talking to demons" were eavesdropping on my conversation with a couple of my friends and rudely interrupted us. Before I could respond to the accusations, my friends told them to bug off, and then we walked away to continue our conversation elsewhere. I've only had a couple of problems with Christians because I typically avoid them in real life, and the ones I do know, aside from my husband, my in-laws, and a couple of friends, don't know about my abilities.

 

[John53]

If you're referring to the skeptic who mocked me and attempted to call me out, I understand why he did so. He wasn't lashing out at me because he was upset with someone else who pretended to be a psychic or psychic medium but wasn't. His friend later told me that he lashed out like that because he was grieving the sudden and unexpected death of his twin brother. He didn't want to be there, but his friend and cousin persuaded him to accompany them to the location. I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he took out his bottled-up frustration on me because I was the lead paranormal investigator at the time and my investigation had drawn a small crowd. His friend apologized, but he never did, despite being chastised for his behavior. I've never seen him again.

If you're referring to the Christians who called me a witch and threatened my life, you can read my previous post here that explains the situation, as well as my previous post here that explains the event that led up to what happened to me. The other Christians who accused me of being demon-possessed and said I'd burn in hell for "talking to demons" were eavesdropping on my conversation with a couple of my friends and rudely interrupted us. Before I could respond to the accusations, my friends told them to bug off, and then we walked away to continue our conversation elsewhere. I've only had a couple of problems with Christians because I typically avoid them in real life, and the ones I do know, aside from my husband, my in-laws, and a couple of friends, don't know about my abilities.

It wasn't so much about you or your experience because I have no knowledge of it, I was trying to explain a sceptics side. I'm not Christian so can't offer anything on their views.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

It wasn't so much about you or your experience because I have no knowledge of it, I was trying to explain a sceptics side. I'm not Christian so can't offer anything on their views.

I'm sorry that happened to your elderly relative.

Sadly, I know that a situation like the one you described reflects poorly on those who are truly psychic or are psychic mediums.

 

[John53]

I'm sorry that happened to your elderly relative.

Sadly, I know that a situation like you described reflects poorly on those who are truly psychic or are a psychic medium.

Well hopefully you understand why some of us require evidence before believing any claim. It's not an attack, it's not done to cause hurt to the claimant.

 

[PureX]

Which is why I generally assume the person is being honest about their experiences even if they are mistaken about their interpretation of those experiences. People are generally not trying to be dishonest. But they can still be mistaken.

As can you in assuming they are mistaken in their interpretation of their experiences. Yet you ignore that possibility and pass judgment on their interpretation of their experiences even though they had the experience, and you did not. Does that seem reasonable to you?

 

[Polymath257]

As can you in assuming they are mistaken in their interpretation of their experiences. Yet you ignore that possibility and pass judgment on their interpretation of their experiences even though they had the experience, and you did not. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Well, yes, actually. It does.

If someone claims to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, I think it quite reasonable to say that they were mistaken. Similarly if they have seen Bigfoot or a UFO. The likelihood that I am mistaken in this judgement is very low.

This is doubly the case if their interpretation violates known laws of physics or chemistry. In this case, the likelihood of my being mistaken is almost zero (barring a discovery that would lead to a Nobel Prize).

 

[Stevicus]

Well, yes, actually. It does.

If someone claims to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, I think it quite reasonable to say that they were mistaken. Similarly if they have seen Bigfoot or a UFO. The likelihood that I am mistaken in this judgement is very low.

This is doubly the case if their interpretation violates known laws of physics or chemistry. In this case, the likelihood of my being mistaken is almost zero (barring a discovery that would lead to a Nobel Prize).

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Well hopefully you understand why some of us require evidence before believing any claim. It's not an attack, it's not done to cause hurt to the claimant.

Yes, I understand, and as I've explained in previous posts (including this one), the reason I post on this forum about my mediumship abilities is so that others who don't have these abilities can experience what I see, hear, and feel every day and have since I was six years old. I also start threads about my paranormal investigations to share my experiences with people who have never had close encounters with the paranormal like I have (such as these posts here and here). I don't talk about being a psychic medium anywhere else online other than RF. And, aside from my husband, children, in-laws, and closest friends, no one else in my family or anyone who knows me is aware that I am a medium or that I investigate the paranormal. I was even hesitant to give my first reading, which was for my therapist at the time (read about it here). To be honest, when I'm in public, like in a restaurant, I avoid drawing attention to myself.

I don't mention that I'm a medium to other people I meet and don't know while I'm investigating a haunted location (read my post here). I will occasionally give a reading to someone if I believe they will be open to it, but I will not press the issue if the person is unwilling to listen. I can only give a reading to someone in person, never online. I've also taken part in a séance where I gave a reading to a former friend and a small group of her friends (read about it here), but it resulted in a real problem for me (read about it here), and I resolved never to do that again. I've met a lot of people over the years who were skeptical of the paranormal, but I have yet to meet someone who remained skeptical after I revealed private information that only this person and their deceased loved one knew.

 

[John53]

Yes, I understand, and as I've explained in previous posts (including this one), the reason I post on this forum about my mediumship abilities is so that others who don't have these abilities can experience what I see, hear, and feel every day and have since I was six years old. I also start threads about my paranormal investigations to share my experiences with people who have never had close encounters with the paranormal like I have (such as these posts here and here). I don't talk about being a psychic medium anywhere else online other than RF. And, aside from my husband, children, in-laws, and closest friends, no one else in my family or anyone who knows me is aware that I am a medium or that I investigate the paranormal. I was even hesitant to give my first reading, which was for my therapist at the time (read about it here). To be honest, when I'm in public, like in a restaurant, I avoid drawing attention to myself.

I don't mention that I'm a medium to other people I meet and don't know while I'm investigating a haunted location (read my post here). I will occasionally give a reading to someone if I believe they will be open to it, but I will not press the issue if the person is unwilling to listen. I can only give a reading to someone in person, never online. I've also taken part in a séance where I gave a reading to a former friend and a small group of her friends (read about it here), but it resulted in a real problem for me (read about it here), and I resolved never to do that again. I've met a lot of people over the years who were skeptical of the paranormal, but I have yet to meet someone who remained skeptical after I revealed private information that only this person and their deceased loved one knew.

Shame it doesn't work over the internet, that would convince the most cynical sceptic. All the psychics I've ever seen which is only on TV were using obvious cold reading techniques and claiming the vaguest connection as a win. Not very impressive.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Shame it doesn't work over the internet, that would convince the most cynical sceptic. All the psychics I've ever seen which is only on TV were using obvious cold reading techniques and claiming the vaguest connection as a win. Not very impressive.

I think it may be widely assumed that all mediums communicate with and interact with the dead in the same way, but we do not, and our mediumship abilities may differ as well (I explained mine here). I've learned over the years that mediums' methods of contacting and communicating with spirits differ. I have specific methods that are comfortable for me, and other mediums have methods that are comfortable for them. For instance, I personally prefer to give a reading in person rather than online or over the phone.