miracles

[George-ananda]

WIKI:

Wikipedia is worthless on the paranormal.

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia
Wikipedia: Captured by Skeptics

I could not have said it better myself.

That may just be because someone like you did say it.

I think if you want to get all your information from Wikipedia or the Randi site, then have at it. The rest of us might actually be skeptical of the skeptics. I think skeptics like you are done when you hear what you want to hear and there are other like minded people out there more than happy to give that to you.

The rest of us will use unbiased critical analysis skills and form our own positions.

 

[Sapiens]

Wikipedia is worthless on the paranormal.

Guerilla Skepticism on Wikipedia
Wikipedia: Captured by Skeptics


That may just be because someone like you did say it.

I think if you want to get all your information from Wikipedia or the Randi site, then have at it. The rest of us might actually be skeptical of the skeptics. I think skeptics like you are done when you hear what you want to hear and there are other like minded people out there more than happy to give that to you.

The rest of us will use unbiased critical analysis skills and form our own positions.

Wikipedia captured by skeptics! Sounds like cry baby loser crap to me. Internally inconsistent to boot. Skeptics are by nature skeptical, even of skepticism. I can not imagine a cabal of skeptics capturing anything.

 

[Darkstorn]

Wikipedia is worthless on the paranormal.

That is not an argument against Wikipedia though, even if you imagined it as such.

The rest of us might actually be skeptical of the skeptics. I think skeptics like you are done when you hear what you want to hear and there are other like minded people out there more than happy to give that to you.

Firstly, i don't think you understand what skepticism means. Second, why are you describing yourself? Your own words: "I have looked at the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence and find the case for the paranormal/miracles overwhelming to the point of no doubt. Miracles do happen I believe."

And you are describing anecdotal evidence.

So my third point is thus: I don't think you understand what skepticism means.

The rest of us will use unbiased critical analysis skills and form our own positions.

Don't lump yourself with "us." I am entirely agnostic to things we have no evidence of. Even your "stuff." But i make no claims until i have evidence. And i've looked at the same things you did.

I say you're a gnostic fairy-tale-believer. And i claim to use the same unbiased critical analysis skills you think you possess.

 

[Audie]

Wikipedia captured by skeptics! Sounds like cry baby loser crap to me. Internally inconsistent to boot. Skeptics are by nature skeptical, even of skepticism. I can not imagine a cabal of skeptics capturing anything.

Shows how eager he is to believe any nonsense that fits the pattern.

 

[George-ananda]

Wikipedia captured by skeptics! Sounds like cry baby loser crap to me. Internally inconsistent to boot. Skeptics are by nature skeptical, even of skepticism. I can not imagine a cabal of skeptics capturing anything.

That is not an argument against Wikipedia though, even if you imagined it as such.



Firstly, i don't think you understand what skepticism means. Second, why are you describing yourself? Your own words: "I have looked at the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence and find the case for the paranormal/miracles overwhelming to the point of no doubt. Miracles do happen I believe."

And you are describing anecdotal evidence.

So my third point is thus: I don't think you understand what skepticism means.



Don't lump yourself with "us." I am entirely agnostic to things we have no evidence of. Even your "stuff." But i make no claims until i have evidence. And i've looked at the same things you did.

I say you're a gnostic fairy-tale-believer. And i claim to use the same unbiased critical analysis skills you think you possess.

Shows how eager he is to believe any nonsense that fits the pattern.

I respect skepticism but the Guerilla Skeptics and the Randi types are what are called pseudo-skeptics by the serious students of the paranormal masquerading under the good name of skepticism. They are not serious unbiased investigators but just anti-paranormal individuals not because the evidence has been fairly considered but because they dislike anything that does not fit their materialist worldview. So they throw haphazard attacks at anything that smacks of the spiritual and paranormal. That is pseudo-skepticism.

 

[Darkstorn]

I respect skepticism but the Guerilla Skeptics and the Randi types are what are called pseudo-skeptics by the serious students of the paranormal masquerading under the good name of skepticism.

So, that means you are masquerading under the good name of skepticism? Maybe you should rethink your statement there.

They are not serious unbiased investigators but just anti-paranormal individuals not because the evidence has been fairly considered but because they dislike anything that does not fit their materialist worldview. So they throw haphazard attacks at anything that smacks of the spiritual and paranormal. That is pseudo-skepticism.

You haven't actually shown that this is the case. You have only shown the following: That you are claiming that they are guilty of that. I say: They might not be. I am skeptical of your claims here. For good reason. Because you failed to support your argument sufficiently.

Let me spell it out for you: You are accusing people of behaving a certain way. Without having shown it to be true. It's an empty attack. "Oh, they're only doing it because they hate my pet beliefs!"

Just give it a rest. We all can see right through that kind of behavior. It's naive to make claims that the evidence hasn't been fairly considered. It has. Even you yourself consider it anecdotal. Here's the thing: Real skeptics hold reservations for anecdotal evidence. You don't. So you cannot be a skeptic.

Furthermore, you quote my post and fail to actually answer any of the points it raises. I wasn't here to talk about Guerrilla Skeptics at all. My point was that you're a gnostic fairy-tale-believer. And that you don't understand what skepticism means.

TLDR: You somehow manage to make claims of other people being biased, and only make yourself look biased. Try to rethink your approach for your own benefit. I haven't seen you make a convincing argument for people who don't believe your claims of ghosts being evidenced beyond reasonable doubt. Just think of this from our perspective:

You are claiming that ghosts are real. You have seen movies right? How do people usually react to characters making claims of ghosts existing? Imagine you're trying to convince THOSE people.

 

[George-ananda]

So, that means you are masquerading under the good name of skepticism? Maybe you should rethink your statement there.



You haven't actually shown that this is the case. You have only shown the following: That you are claiming that they are guilty of that. I say: They might not be. I am skeptical of your claims here. For good reason. Because you failed to support your argument sufficiently.

Let me spell it out for you: You are accusing people of behaving a certain way. Without having shown it to be true. It's an empty attack. "Oh, they're only doing it because they hate my pet beliefs!"

Just give it a rest. We all can see right through that kind of behavior. It's naive to make claims that the evidence hasn't been fairly considered. It has. Even you yourself consider it anecdotal. Here's the thing: Real skeptics hold reservations for anecdotal evidence. You don't. So you cannot be a skeptic.

Furthermore, you quote my post and fail to actually answer any of the points it raises. I wasn't here to talk about Guerrilla Skeptics at all. My point was that you're a gnostic fairy-tale-believer. And that you don't understand what skepticism means.

TLDR: You somehow manage to make claims of other people being biased, and only make yourself look biased. Try to rethink your approach for your own benefit. I haven't seen you make a convincing argument for people who don't believe your claims of ghosts being evidenced beyond reasonable doubt. Just think of this from our perspective:

You are claiming that ghosts are real. You have seen movies right? How do people usually react to characters making claims of ghosts existing? Imagine you're trying to convince THOSE people.

My personal position has been formed from decades of consideration of these things. It is impossible cover all that in a reply post with a poster belligerent to my views.

So, anyway, my position is miracles do occur as our physical realm is interpenetrated by higher realms/dimensions/planes that can interact with the physical. My reason for believing this is the experimental and the analyzed quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal human experiences and the teachings of spiritual masters I have come to respect.

That all can not be detailed in a reply post. So, unless you have something specific to discuss, I don’t know where else to go with this discussion.

 

[Darkstorn]

My personal position has been formed from decades of consideration of these things.

Yes, your personal position. But you do have to understand this: Your position is NOT the default position. We can't just "feel" the anecdotal evidence the same way you do, and it's futile for you to even think that what you've shown to us is convincing to other people.

It is impossible cover all that in a reply post with a poster belligerent to my views.

But almost all instances of people arguing with you are people challenging your claims. You are welcome to your views, but when you post open claims on the debate forum, you must expect people to react to it in certain ways.

I'm not belligerent to your views at all. Only the way you're presenting them: Value is subjective. And you value anecdotal evidence much more than what most people who are considered skeptics do.

In fact, i hold zero value for anecdotal evidence in the context of conclusiveness. They are useful, yes. But not something you can hold that much faith in and still call yourself a skeptic.

So, anyway, my position is miracles do occur as our physical realm is interpenetrated by higher realms/dimensions/planes that can interact with the physical.

Okay.

My reason for believing this is the experimental and the analyzed quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal human experiences and the teachings of spiritual masters I have come to respect.

You are holding anecdotal evidence as conclusive, and this is still part of the problem. That sounds just like bias.

That all can not be detailed in a reply post. So, unless you have something specific to discuss, I don’t know where else to go with this discussion.

I don't really want to discuss your views at all to be honest, i really don't care. But i would like to discuss the inconsistency of them, if that's alright with you? Okay, let's start:

You hold anecdotal evidence as conclusive and call yourself a skeptic. Yet you also accuse others of bias. I don't know about you, but to me that is conclusive enough evidence to make me think that you really don't know what you're talking about. Which further undermines my faith in your ability to even remotely act objectively.

Which, again, undermines your other claims.

In plain English: Your own arguments are so unconvincing you need people like me to tell you that you should try a different method of getting your views across. Because right now you're only convincing those who already believe your words to begin with.

Heh, anecdotal evidence. This has got to be a joke? Right? If you're serious, this will be my last post in this thread.

 

[George-ananda]

Heh, anecdotal evidence. This has got to be a joke? Right? If you're serious, this will be my last post in this thread.

I’m serious that honest anecdotal evidence analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency affects my worldview. Logical assessing of human experiences is an important reasoning skill.

 

[Sapiens]

I’m serious that honest anecdotal evidence analyzed for quantity, quality and consistency affects my worldview. ...

At least you are beginning to grasp the base of why you are misunderstanding things ... anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal evidence, no matter what sort of fancy clothes you dress it up in.

 

[George-ananda]

At least you are beginning to grasp the base of why you are misunderstanding things ... anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal evidence, no matter what sort of fancy clothes you dress it up in.

Yeah, and I'm saying analyzed bodies of anecdotal evidence can influence my worldview.

I am not making physical science claims but rather taking all the information and argumentation at my disposal and forming my judgment as to what is most reasonable to believe.

What is wrong with that? Isn't that part of the normal human reasoning process to consider everything and form a judgment. That is how juries determine court cases for example, isn't it? Like a jury can conclude 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt', I conclude, the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

And then I hold the experimental evidence is further sprinkles on the cake.

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah, and I'm saying analyzed bodies of anecdotal evidence can influence my worldview.

I am not making physical science claims but rather taking all the information and argumentation at my disposal and forming my judgment as to what is most reasonable to believe.

What is wrong with that? Isn't that part of the normal human reasoning process to consider everything and form a judgment. That is how juries determine court cases for example, isn't it? Like a jury can conclude 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt', I conclude, the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

And then I hold the experimental evidence is further sprinkles on the cake.

The problem is that you've got it backwards and thus engage in a kind of prejudicial thinking. Anecdotal evidence leads to hypothesis formation which is then tested empirically. You put the cart before the horse and thus are cursed to flounder about in a regime of pseudoscience.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that you've got it backwards and thus engage in a kind of prejudicial thinking. Anecdotal evidence leads to hypothesis formation which is then tested empirically. You put the cart before the horse and thus are cursed to flounder about in a regime of pseudoscience.

I guess it is not sinking in to you that I am not doing science.

 

[Sapiens]

I guess it is not sinking in to you that I am not doing science.

Therein lies your problem.

 

[George-ananda]

Therein lies your problem.

Some things are beyond science's ability to investigate at this time.

Science is great but has its limitations. I am not a follower of scientism so I learn from observation and analysis and from other wisdom traditions too.

Per Webster's Dictionary Scientism is: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

 

[Audie]

Some things are beyond science's ability to investigate at this time.

Science is great but has its limitations. I am not a follower of scientism so I learn from observation and analysis and from other wisdom traditions too.

Per Webster's Dictionary Scientism is: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Of course science has limits.
Nobody here does "Scientism".

So what do you accomplish with above post?

 

[Audie]

The problem is that you've got it backwards and thus engage in a kind of prejudicial thinking. Anecdotal evidence leads to hypothesis formation which is then tested empirically. You put the cart before the horse and thus are cursed to flounder about in a regime of pseudoscience.

Anecdotal evidence give us mermaids and flying saucers.

That is the big trouble with science, it does not give us things that do not exist.

 

[George-ananda]

Of course science has limits.
Nobody here does "Scientism".

So, how does your approach to truth differ from scientism?

Wikipedia: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

So what do you accomplish with above post?

I established that I believe we can learn about our reality through means other than physical science.

 

[Audie]

So, how does your approach to truth differ from scientism?

Wikipedia: Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning-to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

I established that I believe we can learn about our reality through means other than physical science.

I dont do "truth".

Besides that, none of scientism reflects anything about me.

You did not establish that we can learn about (some aspects of) reality thro means other than science.

Everybody knows that!!!


What about this was not clear the first time I said it?
Very very simple. Here it is again

Of course science has limits.
Nobody here does "Scientism".


I wonder if you have it in you to recognize you got a couple of things dead wrong, there.

 

[George-ananda]

I dont do "truth".

Besides that, none of scientism reflects anything about me.

You did not establish that we can learn about (some aspects of) reality thro means other than science.

Everybody knows that!!!


What about this was not clear the first time I said it?
Very very simple. Here it is again

Of course science has limits.
Nobody here does "Scientism".


I wonder if you have it in you to recognize you got a couple of things dead wrong, there.

So then the question becomes what is wrong with my approach of analyzing a large body of anecdotal evidence for quantity, quality and consistency and forming a judgment?