|
Viewing 46 - 54 out of 102 Blogs.
Have any of you done or considered doing, or done what I'm about to do?:
For now on I'm just going to give random answers to everyone's poll questions (including my own) since it's the only way to see how others are answering these things.
For anyone who thinks me - or anyone - doing this is insincere and selfish, I agree with you.
I’m a former EVP experimenter who has worked alone and with others, and like many of you, have “haunted experiences”. My thinking is, paranormal endeavors, like any human activities, are fraught and blessed with the proverbial light side and dark side. Not talking about angels and demons, rather the social art of paranormal exploration.
It involves passion, biases, discoveries, mistakes, harmony and conflict … especially when the exploration is shared, rather than solo. In my mind, the social world of the paranormal is like a unique pet that is partially covered in downy fur and partially sheathed with prickles. The main task is to learn how to carefully embrace the entire animal … which means not habitually creating - or getting hooked by - the predictable human drama. It also means resisting tendencies to think in extremes.
For example, there's a fine line between being accommodating of others' beliefs, and being fake in an attempt to appear in agreement. There’s an equally fine line between openly expressing strong opinions and being dogmatic or mean (one of my biggest personal challenges). Also, there’s a fine line between productive psi investigation/research and rigid skepticism; between open-mindedness and credulousness or gullibility.
Well, what say you?: How do you keep balanced as a paranormal explorer working with others?
- R
Could God (or Gods/Goddesses) have created the Universe, then died or fallen asleep?
... Tboned, if you’re out there, I was thinking of you when I came up with this question, in the spirit of your response under Akman’s blog about evidence of God 
This is my slightly altered reply left under Akmanforchrist’s recent and thoughtful blog called Oh no … here he goes again ... Evidence of God.
The more scientific knowledge I acquire in general (with the human body being a primary focus), the more I realize how very few answers we really have, and how elusive the genius called nature is, even by the strictest scientific standards.
The human brain is more powerful in its scope of abilities than the finest computer, yet we're still - in our 'Age of Reason' - unable to understand the precise mechanisms behind many of its basic executions. We are bright, but still largely ignorant about the organ that “makes” us bright.
That we don't understand the Universe in total; that our knowledge lacks breadth, keeps me from making any absolute statement about the absence of a God/s. Therefore there's no way that I can squarely place myself in the atheist camp, even as a relative skeptic (re: many things).
Those of us who have any depth/training in science/scientific thinking, will often quickly find our knowledge is limited. So much of what we "know" is theoretical. Even the general public understands scientific limitations: one year we read about a well-researched “wonder drug” and a few years and dozens of studies later, we find out it is deemed deleterious and is therefore yanked off the shelves.
A fact that some atheists conveniently forget during discursive wrangling re: ontology, is that our lack of complete (holistic) knowledge leaves an epistemological gap preventing an objective overview of, well, everything of us and around us! Gosh, there is simply no way to rule out the possibility of a Higher Power/s, as I see it. So yes, my thought is the very intelligence of nature could be submitted as evidence that a Higher Power might exist.
- R
Sylvia Browne, as you’ll hear on the Montel show, habitually attempts to diagnose audience members’ medical problems. She often tells them what type of specialists they need to visit. Naturally she frequently misunderstands or confuses medical terms, conditions, symptoms; because hers is the role of an alleged psychic entertainer, not a trained physician. Making declarative statements about peoples’ medical status and/or the type of specialist they should see, is both unethical and potentially very dangerous.
My prediction: one day she will get slapped with a medical lawsuit and it will stick.
Hopefully the suit won’t involve the loss of a life.
- R
Cherry got me all revved up with her blog about Sylvia Browne (she raised some damn good questions). Generally I try hard not to launch public, online accusatory attacks on people (don't always succeed). But Ms. Browne is just such a great example - a poster child - for unethical psychic practice. She is high profile and that leaves her with a lot of relative power and responsibility. And I’m calling her out on it. Her fraudulent practices leave a shadow over lesser-known sincere practitioners who actually deserve respect IMO.
Like other human endeavors, it should be understood that “real” psychics can and do make mistakes.
So perhaps evidence of Sylvia’s alleged ability exists, regardless of her blunders, or my suspicions. But does her ability justify a fee of $750 for a brief phone reading (30 minutes or less)? In a best case scenario, her readings are more powerful than 750 therapy sessions, or the equivalent of winning the lottery 4 times over, justifying the cost. At less than best, her high costs reflect classism (services easily accessible only to the relatively rich); available to those who might go broke spending their savings. At worst, she is not just classist, but fraudulent, lacking touted abilities.
From watching any of her weekly appearances on the Montel Williams show, it seems quite obvious to me - and many others - that Sylvia is using a cold reading technique. She seems to tease answers out of people. Also, when someone contradicts her interpretation, she becomes pedantic and patronizing, equivocating what she said to try and bridge the gap. And who knows what goes on prior to the editing of the show?
Some time ago I listened to a Coast to Coast AM show where Ms. Browne outright lied on air, to the host, George Noory. She stated that the miners trapped in West Virginia (at that time), were alive and well. Soon after she said this, Noory received news that all but one miner had died. Still on air, Sylvia flagrantly denied her initial claim that she thought they were alive (this show can still be found in the show archives). Just after she left the studio, Noory openly questioned her integrity on air (in his round-about way). Here's a link for general info on her. I don't take everything on the site as gospel :
http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/articles/
… While I’m not an anti-Sylvia-ist based on her parlor tricks, shoddy predictions and high fees, I am extremely concerned about a practice of hers that presents a public hazard. I will address it in the next blog …
- R
Well this question was part of a poll, but there were a very limited number of answers, so I turn to you again, for your wisdom:
Background: I had a haunting which stopped about 5 months ago (it had lasted about 4 or 5 months too). It seemed to have gone away immediately after I set up cameras to try and capture evidence. I had already collected audio evidence by then. It was rapping. Loud knocks and bangs.
Question: In your guys' experience with hauntings, does the activity typically stop for good, or does it tend to start up again later?
... I'm not afraid of it returning, just curious ... Thank you in advance for whatever you can tell me based on your experience.
One Hell-of-a-stink is made about Occam’s Razor in the hardcore skeptical community. But the poor Razor has been abused to the point of appearing dull. Seems it’s misplaced in most arguments these days. You needn’t go on a search for the Razor, it can easily be found at the heart of many pseudo-intellectual hardcore skeptical rants. The idea behind the Razor is a good and useful one: All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. The operative word here, often overlooked, is tends. It reflects tendency, promising no certainty whatsoever (more on that below).
I won’t mention website names anymore. Instead, here is a standard argument (reconstructed) where a poster attempts to debunk the existence of anything paranormal, using the Razor:
Occam’s razor shows us that if something appears to move all by itself, there are many perfectly good explanations that logical thinking offers us. Therefore, when faced with a wild claim, pick the simplest explanation. So instead of choosing the ghostly explanation, choose mistaken vision, poor lighting or a deceptive witness. Well yes, I agree there are many who jump to wild conclusions that appear to mindlessly point away from likely causation (plausible logic based on empirical data and accumulated knowledge). And I'm in agreement that there's a wellspring of "lazy logic" and lies couched as methodical reasoning or irrefutable truth. And lying is known to happen.
But, no one can claim with absolute certainty that one or more sane, intelligent and healthy people, somewhere on the planet at some time, has not experienced a highly unusual, repeatable or unrepeatable event that may defy the logic of physics as we understand it to date (especially since I’ve witnessed multiple events that defy all attempts at logical deduction, like some or many of you ) . That is where Occam’s Razor loses its edge. The concept of OR is based on tendency and probability. That leaves the skeptic as sure as s/he wants to be, and as empty handed as a beggar.
In response to some of these folks I’ve often said that if even one paranormal event has occurred, it could reflect an aspect of physics that has thus far remained undiscovered; or a miscalculation in our understanding of physical laws. Science - a wonderful, but very human - endeavor, has shown itself to have blind spots in the past. The fatal mistake of hardcore skeptics is in using the words improbable with impossible as if they are fungible, interchangeable. But these two concepts are worlds apart in terms of implication: there is no way to refute the fact that certain events that appear improbable, could turn out to be possible; a reality.
- R
Well, last blog ended with a threat to write a new blog (this) to show examples of how hardcore skeptical thinking can seem every bit as irrational as overly-superstitious thinking (or that of habitually ignoring mundane explanations in favor of the least probable ones) … promised to site examples from the JREF website. Nope, not slamming the entire site.
What makes a woo tick? Someone clue me in.
This is the name of one of the numerous, judgmental-sounding post threads. “Woo” refers to someone who believes in, or makes claims to, paranormal abilities or subscribes to anything allegedly paranormal.
Here follow some forum responses to this question:
“The inability or reluctance to distinguish childish fantasy from reality. Or more simply: Failure to grow up.”
“A pet theory of mine originating after learning about behavioural styles, is that it is to do with attention seeking.”
“I think it could, at least partially, be due to an over-riding need to assign meaning and patterns to everything we see - and if it makes us feel like we are a part of something larger.”
“Because they have no special talents otherwise. So perhaps it could also be a touch of envy involved.”
… The first explanation (immaturity) is universal in everyone at times, and judging by the overall quality of posts at the JREF site - very adversarial and downright malicious - immaturity enjoys universal status, and apparently explains SJS (Skeptics' Judgementality Syndrome) as well. However I agree that some beliefs are partially or wholly based in fantasy, or even psychosis.
The next is attention seeking: actually I agree that attention seeking is behind a lot of paranormal claims (the false or exaggerated one). It is often a valid argument. However, attention seeking is also a companion behavior to immaturity, and hence, as previously stated, is embodied by skeptics and so-called “woos” alike.
The third theory also holds merit. We all tend to see patterns in objects and events. It’s part of a survival mechanism. It’s true some put too much stock in their first impression of something at times, misreading it as psi when it’s a mundane occurrence. But this in itself does nothing to explain overall belief in psi, in my opinion. I agree with the comment about feeling part of something larger. At certain times I could see this desire motivating someone to think they sense something that isn’t in fact there.
The fourth argument is transparently illogical and narcissistic. It’s a well-established fact that people from all walks of life and skill levels/intellectual capacities, hold paranormal beliefs. More to come. I’m on a roll …
- R
|
Favorites
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo MyWeb
