The Role of the Skeptic

Page 7 of 8 [ 127 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

03 Nov 2020, 3:17 am

You don't need any mental illness for your mind to play tricks on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
Seeing non-existent meaningful patterns in noise is natural and older than humans. It's adaptive. It's better to see seven non-existent tigers hiding in the bushes if it prevents you from missing the existent one

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Nov 2020, 5:38 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:

In my apartment we lived in long ago my SO claimed to see a ghost of a little boy standing there. When I lived there with her I didn't see it and none of our other roommates saw it as far as I know. I'm married to her to this day and I love her to this day. As far as I can see she has no mental illness nor does she have any delusions or hallucinations. If she has no hallucinations as far as I know or delusions, she doesn't take drugs, has no mental illness as far as I can tell, and no one including me saw anything did she really see anything? Was there something there that she saw that the rest of us could not see? And, could it have been possible that others saw it as well but didn't want to come across as crazy?

If it was not a ghost than what did she see exactly? And, could there be things that one group of people can see that others can't? Is that possible?

Another thing, all of the disorders that are in the DSM have no physical, laboratory tests. So, how do you test for the presence of schizophrenia without having to observe the symptoms which is what psychology does?

Yes psychiatrists refer to delusions/hallucinations in DSM but of course it's silly because its like labelling normal people as schizophrenic so they just refer to the symptom so I think its called schizotypal.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

03 Nov 2020, 5:58 am

cyberdad wrote:

cubedemon6073 wrote:

This is where the skeptics are right though. It is better to start off with more mundane explanations and eliminate each one as you test for them.

I would test to see if there is any gas in the air, maybe test for radiation or infrasound. Test for any kind of poisons, intoxicating substances first. Check for any brain tumors. These are the things I would do. Test for and eliminate anything mundane first. If one finds a mundane cause(s) than that's it. There was no ghost.

ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,270

03 Nov 2020, 1:36 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:

all of the disorders that are in the DSM have no physical, laboratory tests. So, how do you test for the presence of schizophrenia without having to observe the symptoms which is what psychology does?

Psychology and psychiatry aren't exact sciences. They seem to be getting a little bit better at objectivity these days, but back in the day it was said that there were as many definitions of schizophrenia as there were psychiatrists.

I don't see anything wrong with science as long as it's done competently and honestly, and as long as nobody tries to use it as a panacea for every human aspiration. It's an extremely useful tool that stops people jumping to wacky conclusions, and we probably need that clear-headed method for most situations, but there are situations in which we might be better off using our emotions and instincts, and another problem with science is that it tends to be very slow, and we don't always have enough time to use it properly.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

03 Nov 2020, 1:52 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:

... I don't see anything wrong with science as long as it's done competently and honestly, and as long as nobody tries to use it as a panacea for every human aspiration. It's an extremely useful tool that stops people jumping to wacky conclusions...

One has to understand the proper applications and methods of using their tools before attempting to actually use them. For instance, "Research" involves far more than just looking for tabloid articles that agree with one's already-formed conclusions, when in practice, one should not form any conclusions at all until all of the empirically-derived data has been examined, tested, and independently vetted by other qualified researchers.

One Expression of The Scientific Method

1) Observe a phenomenon.

2) Define a question about the phenomenon (i.e., "Why did 'X' happen?").

3) Gather information (i.e. library data, other research papers, patents, et cetera) & resources (i.e. more observations).

4) Form a suggested explanation (either a "Speculation" or a "Working Hypothesis") of the phenomenon.

For Working Hypotheses Only

5) Test the Working Hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner.

6) Analyze the data. If the data do not support the hypothesis, then return to Step 3.

7) Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis.

8) Publish results for peer review.

9) Retest, if needed (frequently done by other scientists).

<------------- Arbitrary Boundary Between Non-Science and Science ------------->

For Speculations Only

5) Publish the explanation as proven fact in anything other than a scientific peer-review journal (i.e., conspiracy websites, tabloids, gossip magazines, et cetera). If the facts support the explanation, include them in the main text; if they do not entirely contradict the explanation, put them in the footnotes; and if they are completely irrelevant to the explanation, just leave them out entirely.

6) Repeat Step 5 as often as possible.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

03 Nov 2020, 9:01 pm

Fnord wrote:

One Expression of The Scientific Method
1) Observe a phenomenon.

2) Define a question about the phenomenon (i.e., "Why did 'X' happen?").

3) Gather information (i.e. library data, other research papers, patents, et cetera) & resources (i.e. more observations).

4) Form a suggested explanation (either a "Speculation" or a "Working Hypothesis") of the phenomenon.

At the moment alternative theorists come against a wall at your point 3) when they try and publish their observational data. Peer reviewed journal editors are gatekeepers so many have no choice but to self-publish or find an open minded publishing house willing to publish their manuscript.

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,958

03 Nov 2020, 10:35 pm

cyberdad wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Exactly!! If the gatekeeps have an emotional bias against certain things are they going to get published and peer reviewed by those Fnord considers legitmate?

Fnord, you are so against emotional bias and troll science (rightly so) that it makes you automatically think it is troll science. Yes, it is paradoxical and contradictory yet it is true. In other words, from what I see when you see ghost your natural pantomime response is "troll science." And, this is what I see from skeptics a lot. So, how are they true skeptics?

Fnord, where you and other skeptics are right the idea of looking at mundane explanations of things. This is correct. We can't jump the gun. But, where you and I differ is I say let's keep the idea of ghosts and spirits on the table until the mundane explanation is proven otherwise. You and the other skeptics on the other hand won't even allow the card on the table at all. That's what I see of you and other skeptics.

If I'm mistaken towards you than I apologize.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Nov 2020, 5:37 am

Lets do a stock-take;
UFOs - The US government has actually admitted they are real. Not sure why scientists are still hiding behind excuses?
Ghosts - evidence of transdimensional entities - accepted by non-western cultures
bigfoot -tantalising evidence from footprints - accepted by non-western cultures
dinosaur like creatures - odd sightings - accepted by non-western cultures
psychic powers - observable but difficult to prove as repeatable experiments (called witchcraft by other cultures)
reincarnation - evidence particularly with children but memories fade over time - accepted by other cultures as normal

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

04 Nov 2020, 10:31 am

cyberdad wrote:

Fnord wrote:

No, they "come against a wall" due to poor research methods (if any), flawed data (if any), fallacious reasoning (if any), and/or irrelevant and unsubstantiated conclusions.

You cannot just look at a moving light in the sky, read "Chariots of The Gods", write a paper on grey-skinned aliens, and expect a science-based professional journal to publish your documents. Real science involves much more than that, and if someone expects to be taken seriously by professional scientific publications, then those people had better earn a hard-science degree first, and then perform some serious research.

Now, I know some people will attack me, the system, and real scientists in general for not accepting the armchair "research" of conspiracy theorists as valid, but even their attacks will not be taken seriously ... except by other "fringe" believers.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

04 Nov 2020, 10:41 am

cyberdad wrote:

UFOs - The US government has actually admitted they are real.

Real Unidentified Flying Objects, not spacecraft designed and operated by space aliens.

cyberdad wrote:

<insert esoteric belief here> - accepted by non-western cultures

Those "Non-Western Cultures" do not include "Non-Western Scientific Institutions". They include religious institutions, local superstitions, native customs, and personal beliefs. The simplest reason why no serious science can be used to examine any of these beliefs is "They do not exist as the stated belief".

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Nov 2020, 10:50 am

Weren't the actual Unidentified Flying Objects mostly classified experimental military planes?

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

04 Nov 2020, 12:52 pm

magz wrote:

Weren't the actual Unidentified Flying Objects mostly classified experimental military planes?

• Astronomical objects (bright stars, planets, meteors, re-entering man-made spacecraft, artificial satellites, and the Moon)
• Aircraft (aerial advertising and other aircraft, missile launches)
• Balloons (toy balloons, weather balloons, large research balloons)
• Other atmospheric objects and phenomena (birds, unusual clouds, kites, flares)
• Light phenomena mirages, Fata Morgana, ball lightning, moon dogs, searchlights and other ground lights, etc.
• Hoaxes

That last one in particular ... sending up one or more of those Chinese paper lanterns where people are not used to seeing them is always good for a few laughs.

Look, Magz! A fleet of UFOs!!

:lol:

magz
Forum Moderator

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

04 Nov 2020, 12:57 pm

A few years ago there were several UFO sightings at Polish seaside, that later got traced to a birthday party releasing Chinese lanterns

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,583
Location: Outter Quadrant

04 Nov 2020, 1:31 pm

They are out there .... whether be Chinese lanterns. Or tin foil balloons ... they are out there ...... (joking)

_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,

Quote:

where ever you go ,there you are

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

04 Nov 2020, 3:29 pm

magz wrote:

A few years ago there were several UFO sightings at Polish seaside, that later got traced to a birthday party releasing Chinese lanterns.

An accidental hoax, to be sure; but a hoax nonetheless.

One that works especially well around holidays and events when people tend to consume a lot of alcohol.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

04 Nov 2020, 3:46 pm

Fnord wrote:

You cannot just look at a moving light in the sky, read "Chariots of The Gods", write a paper on grey-skinned aliens, and expect a science-based professional journal to publish your documents. Real science involves much more than that, and if someone expects to be taken seriously by professional scientific publications, then those people had better earn a hard-science degree first, and then perform some serious research.

Now, I know some people will attack me, the system, and real scientists in general for not accepting the armchair "research" of conspiracy theorists as valid, but even their attacks will not be taken seriously ... except by other "fringe" believers.[/color]

I never actually mentioned aliens Fnord?

UFOs are literally unidentified flying objects. Both the British and US government personnel have admitted seeing UFOs that are unable to classified/labelled since WWII when such objects were labelled foo fighters and were of sufficient importance that president Eisenhower wrote to Winston Churchill about the matter.

The pentagon has a program funded by the taxpayer called AATIP which is called advanced aerospace threat identification program which actively encourages military to report such objects.

So the data is there.....waiting to be published....the ball is firmly in the court of aforementioned journal editors who remain gatekeepers to "actual" investigation.

Page 7 of 8 [ 127 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

The Role of the Skeptic Post Reply New Topic

The Role of the Skeptic