Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2019/01/06 22:41:10
Subject: Re:Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Reported encounters with external entities[edit]
Entities perceived during DMT inebriation have been represented in diverse forms of psychedelic art.[20] The term Machine Elf was coined by ethnobotanist Terence McKenna for the entities he encountered in DMT "hyperspace", also using terms like fractal elves, or self-transforming machine elves.[21][22] McKenna first encountered the "machine elves" after smoking DMT in Berkeley in 1965. His subsequent speculations regarding the hyperdimensional space in which they were encountered, has inspired a great many artists and musicians, and the meaning of DMT entities has been a subject of considerable debate among participants in a networked cultural underground, enthused by McKenna's effusive accounts of DMT hyperspace.[23] Cliff Pickover has also written about the "machine elf" experience, in the book Sex, Drugs, Einstein, & Elves,[7] while Rick Strassman notes many similarities between self-reports of his DMT study participants' encounters with these "entities", and mythological descriptions of figures such as Chayot Ha Kodesh in Ancient religions, including both angels and demons.[24] Strassman also argues for a similarity in his study participants' descriptions of mechanized wheels, gears and machinery in these encounters, with those described in visions of encounters with the Living Creatures and Ophanim of the Hebrew Bible, noting they may stem from a common neuropsychopharmacological experience.[24]
Strassman argues that the more positive of the "external entities" encountered in DMT experiences should be understood as analogous to certain forms of angels:
“
The medieval Jewish philosophers whom I rely upon for understanding the Hebrew Bible text and its concept of prophecy portray angels as God's intermediaries. That is, they perform a certain function for God. Within the context of my DMT research, I believe that the beings that volunteers see could be conceived of as angelic - that is, previously invisible, incorporeal spiritual forces that are engarbed or enclothed in a particular form - determined by the psychological and spiritual development of the volunteers - bringing a particular message or experience to that volunteer.[25]
”
However, Strassman's experimental participants also note that some other entities can subjectively resemble creatures more like insects and aliens.[26] As a result, Strassman writes these experiences among his experimental participants "also left me feeling confused and concerned about where the spirit molecule was leading us. It was at this point that I began to wonder if I was getting in over my head with this research."[27]
Hallucinations of strange creatures had been reported by Szara in the Journal of Mental Science (now the British Journal of Psychiatry) (1958) "Dimethyltryptamine Experiments with Psychotics", Stephen Szara described how one of his subjects under the influence of DMT had experienced "strange creatures, dwarves or something" at the beginning of a DMT trip.[28][29]
Other researchers of the entities seemingly encountered by DMT users, describe them as "entities" or "beings" in humanoid as well as animal form, with descriptions of "little people" being common (non-human gnomes, elves, imps, etc.).[30] Strassman and others have speculated that this form of hallucination may be the cause of alien abduction and extraterrestrial encounter experiences, which may occur through endogenously-occurring DMT.[31][32]
Likening them to descriptions of rattling and chattering auditory phenomenon described in encounters with the mythical Hayyoth in the Book of Ezekiel, Rick Strassman notes that participants in his studies, when reporting encounters with the alleged entities, have also described loud auditory hallucinations, such as one subject reporting typically "the elves laughing or talking at high volume, chattering, twittering".[24]
I always thought those were called Grimlins. Did old cartoons teach me wrong?
There are a lot of differences between undiscovered animals and fantastical creatures.
Not really, in a substantial number of cases they're synonymous.
Absolutely spot on! Remember when we hadn't discovered Mountain Gorillas? lol, we thought they could totally possess a human and consume their soul. BOY WERE WE WRONG!
Your argument is hilariously bad.
Exalted! Trying to defend the possible existence of fairy creatures with... late discovered mountain gorillas is... ambitious to say the least. LMAO!
You're absolutely right, which is why that's not my argument.
Assuming it's not a capacity thing, and simply a misunderstanding thing, I'd be happy to try and simplify my position for you if you'd like, just ask!
I went with European vampires because I'm happier commenting on things I have some prior knowledge on, unlike the Oriental stuff which I'm less up to speed on. Perhaps try it?
That is a myth. More to the point, a very very recent myth you have fallen for.
In 1985 biochemist David Dolphin proposed that the vampires of folklore may actually have been people suffering from porphyria, a group of rare, largely hereditary blood diseases. According to the Times account of his remarks:
(1) Porphyria victims are extraordinarily sensitive to sunlight. Even mild exposure can cause severe disfigurement. Facial skin may scar, the nose and fingers may fall off, and the lips and gums may become so taut that the teeth project like fangs.
(2) To avoid sunlight, people with serious cases of porphyria go out only at night, just like Dracula.
(3) Today porphyria can be treated with injections of blood products. Centuries ago, porphyria victims might have sought to treat themselves by drinking blood.
(4) Porphyria is inherited, but the symptoms may not manifest themselves until brought on by stress. Suppose a sibling with an active case of the disease bites you to quench his thirst for blood. Très stressful, non? Suddenly your own latent porphyria goes critical and you start growing fangs too.
(5) Garlic contains a chemical that worsens porphyria symptoms, causing sufferers to avoid it. Just like vampires.
Great story, eh? The media, including me, went nuts, and today everybody “knows” that porphyria patients are vampires — to the distress of people who actually have these diseases.
Just one problem. People with porphyria aren’t vampires, and there’s no reason to think that the vampires of folklore had the disease (or existed at all). To respond point by point:
(1) Porphyria comprises seven separate disorders. Skin problems are a fairly common symptom, but only the rarest form — congenital erythropoietic porphyria — causes severe disfigurement. Just 200 cases of this disease have been diagnosed, surely too few to account for the widespread belief in vampires. In any case, alleged vampires exhumed in the 18th century typically weren’t disfigured but appeared as they had in life (except for being dead, of course).
(2) The idea that vampires abhor sunlight was an invention of fiction writers. In Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, vampires were sometimes reported to have been sighted during the day. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was deathly pale, but folkloric vampires, in the Balkans anyway, were said to be ruddy-faced due to blood consumption.
(3) Porphyria victims don’t crave blood. Drinking blood will not alleviate their symptoms, nor has there ever been a general belief that it would. The blood chemicals porphyria victims need do not survive digestion.
(4) In light of the preceding, the scenario described in point #4 above is unlikely.
(5) No one has proved that garlic worsens porphyria.
Professor Dolphin never published a formal paper describing his theory. When I phoned, he didn’t wish to speak to me and would say only that “it was just speculation” and that “I haven’t worked in this area for many years.”
The practice of trying to match diseases with well-known figures in history or folklore has a long and not entirely reputable history. (Porphyria, for one, has also been blamed for werewolves.) Maybe next time we’ll know better.
Ok, so you've found somebody who has an opinion on somebody else's opinion. I've really no more gas in the tank to keep thrashing this out, there's elements of your source which slightly straw man what I had previously understood. But even taking your source as gospel and incontrovertible, all that means is I've (technically, you) used a bad example. My argument doesn't materially change, which is poorly understood science is often mistaken for the supernatural, and progress inevitably reveals these things to be explainable as our knowledge expands.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/06 22:45:46
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
In human terms, 1985 is hardly "recent," and in fact, the very same Wiki page you got the links from cites the theory as originating in the 60s. I suppose it's "recent" in relation to when the events in question may have occurred, but in the terms of when humans were in a position to even consider it as a possibility, not really.
Dr Dophin has been known to lecture on the subject as recently as 2007, so he clearly still thinks the idea has merit.
The article you cite claims vampires walked in the day, but then, IIRC so did Stoker's Dracula. Most genetic diseases, in fact any disease in general, has a spectrum of effects, and it still remains possible that in Eastern Europe, a part of the world not necessarily known for its tropical climate, there could have been days, even weeks at a time, where there wasn't strong enough sunlight to pose a sufferer enough discomfort that they couldn't come out in the day if required.
Equally, my understanding wasn't that victims "craved" blood but simply consumed it, animal of course, in an attempt to relieve the anemia that accompanied their other symptoms. Something I find eminently understandable considering the lack of medical knowledge contemporary with the time period.
But, like I say, this doesn't materially alter my argument in the slightest and is at worst a poor example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention that the folkloric vampire is likely a compound of many separate beliefs, and pointing to one idea as a perfect solution isn't likely to ever explain any seeds of real world truth in entirety.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 00:20:19
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: In human terms, 1985 is hardly "recent," and in fact, the very same Wiki page you got the links from cites the theory as originating in the 60s. I suppose it's "recent" in relation to when the events in question may have occurred, but in the terms of when humans were in a position to even consider it as a possibility, not really.
Dr Dophin has been known to lecture on the subject as recently as 2007, so he clearly still thinks the idea has merit.
The article you cite claims vampires walked in the day, but then, IIRC so did Stoker's Dracula. Most genetic diseases, in fact any disease in general, has a spectrum of effects, and it still remains possible that in Eastern Europe, a part of the world not necessarily known for its tropical climate, there could have been days, even weeks at a time, where there wasn't strong enough sunlight to pose a sufferer enough discomfort that they couldn't come out in the day if required.
Equally, my understanding wasn't that victims "craved" blood but simply consumed it, animal of course, in an attempt to relieve the anemia that accompanied their other symptoms. Something I find eminently understandable considering the lack of medical knowledge contemporary with the time period.
But, like I say, this doesn't materially alter my argument in the slightest and is at worst a poor example.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Not to mention that the folkloric vampire is likely a compound of many separate beliefs, and pointing to one idea as a perfect solution isn't likely to ever explain any seeds of real world truth in entirety.
Consuming blood does not help with anemia and the people of the time would have never even considered that a possible solution, considering the lack of medical knowledge of the time. Further more, Stoker's Dracula is where the myth of vampires being allergic to sunlight came about. Which is also a very recent thing.
You said you had read up and were an expert on eastern European vampires but yet, you don't know anything about them. Like how the original folklore is absolutely NOTHING like the modernized myths and urban legends of today.
But yet, you keep using recent myths and legends from books to try to say that it is possible. When we absolutely know that that is where those things came from. It baffles my mind.
It would be like reading Harry Potter and thinking that witches were real.
2019/01/07 04:16:13
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
You said you had read up and were an expert on eastern European vampires
No I didn't, I said I was more familiar with them than oriental ones. Largely because being in western culture that's normally what people consider. Everything else is just you projecting.
I've probably read a little more than your average person, but then if, as you seem to be asserting, that Drs in areas of study that should know far more than me are writing information that's incorrect, then it isn't really surprising if my information is also incorrect. After all, where else is the information coming from.
But then, all you're really doing is aggressively asserting stuff from the wiki, so I'm not so sure you're as well informed as you're trying to portray.
Either way, still doesn't change the material of my argument etc etc..
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Dreadwinter wrote: Consuming blood does not help with anemia and the people of the time would have never even considered that a possible solution, considering the lack of medical knowledge of the time.
If we are talking about anemia (lack of iron in the blood that causes fatigue, weaknesses, palid skin and yellow teeth), it was described fairly accurately in term of symptomes in 1500 BC Egypt. During the Middle Ages, it was cured by the consumption of Iron Salts mixed with red wine as it was thought to fortified the blood. It's efficient but caused constipation and stomac pain if taken too often. Anemia and even porpheria weren't unkown and untreated (with varying level of success) diseases. Vampirism as more to do with cruelty and sociopathic/psychopathic behavior then disease. People in the Middle-Ages didn't know or could do much about illnesses for they had no Germ Theory of disease, microscope and systematic recording of medecine (herboristery was mostly a thing passed from oral tradition usually by women), but they weren't seeing magic, spells and goblins everywhere. Remember, in the Middle-Ages, the official position of the Chruch, intellectuals and the social elite was that believing in magic or supernatural creatures like ghosts, witches and others was false and pagan. It was criminal in most kingdoms. In Northern Italy, accusing a women of witchcraft would condamned you to death for bearing false accusation and heresy for belief in pagan gods. The only supernatural creature you could and really should believe in was God and his angels. The existence of demons was accepted, but they were powerless on Earth and couldn't leave hell. The idea of magic and magical monsters was considered a pagan thing, thus false and wrong. You would have to wait for the beginning of hte 16th century and the Reform to see the idea of satanism, demonic possession and witchcraft to emerge and be accepted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 04:39:08
2019/01/07 09:18:47
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
You said you had read up and were an expert on eastern European vampires
No I didn't, I said I was more familiar with them than oriental ones. Largely because being in western culture that's normally what people consider. Everything else is just you projecting.
I've probably read a little more than your average person, but then if, as you seem to be asserting, that Drs in areas of study that should know far more than me are writing information that's incorrect, then it isn't really surprising if my information is also incorrect. After all, where else is the information coming from.
But then, all you're really doing is aggressively asserting stuff from the wiki, so I'm not so sure you're as well informed as you're trying to portray.
Either way, still doesn't change the material of my argument etc etc..
Oh wow, you are going to try to hand wave your way out of this. Nevermind, you keep on thinking there are vampires out there sparkling and stuff. I hear they aren't big fans with the werewolf gang and you should avoid the Malkavians!
2019/01/07 11:52:10
Subject: Re:Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
On the topic of 'find me one culture in history that didn't believe in the supernatural', I can find you people who think they fight demons in McDonalds bathrooms, that yetis abducted their cattle and that their vision is actually a beam which shoots out from the eyes and returns to them.
People believing a thing does not make it real. In more practical terms we have generations of political, economic and social systems which prove this out. Someone can believe that there's a single perfect way for society to function, and they're proven wrong every single time. We've disregarded hundreds of gods to the trash heap that once had entire civilizations worshiping their name. Why is that a support for your argument?
If you want to make claims about something existing, there has to be a method of quantifying it's existence. If there isn't, we're relying purely on hearsay. And as someone who was well into all this and tried to take a more serious approach to it, oh holy crap is none of it really worth mentioning. 90% of what you read is heavily doctored from whatever the original report was, if there even was one, and that's even before social media and video editing software were half what they are now. I did a lot of digging into folk lore and modern accounts and frankly... there's nothing really there. The patterns people think they find in folk lore to link something from a series of stories into a phenomenon are heavy handed extrapolations rarely supported by their sources. From there those packaged pieces of nothing disseminate into a real credulous community which promptly starts reporting more of that exact thing happening, but there's this one cool thing that makes their encounter really special.
It's purely an economy of belief, you saw the thing I did, so I believe that thing you're talking about since you're clearly credible.
Yeah, no, discounting the clear copycats very little hold together under scrutiny. Though some of it's amazing fiction to read. The one about bigfoots invading their farm from the UFOs was stunning, be blind luck if I can ever find it again though. There's also an entire thing about if the plural of bigfoot is bigfeet or bigfoots, which was great.
2019/01/07 15:55:05
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
You said you had read up and were an expert on eastern European vampires
No I didn't, I said I was more familiar with them than oriental ones. Largely because being in western culture that's normally what people consider. Everything else is just you projecting.
I've probably read a little more than your average person, but then if, as you seem to be asserting, that Drs in areas of study that should know far more than me are writing information that's incorrect, then it isn't really surprising if my information is also incorrect. After all, where else is the information coming from.
But then, all you're really doing is aggressively asserting stuff from the wiki, so I'm not so sure you're as well informed as you're trying to portray.
Either way, still doesn't change the material of my argument etc etc..
Oh wow, you are going to try to hand wave your way out of this. Nevermind, you keep on thinking there are vampires out there sparkling and stuff. I hear they aren't big fans with the werewolf gang and you should avoid the Malkavians!
When you're reducing somebody's argument to straw men it's probably best to just stop.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
One last time, a critical approach does not use “certain” terms to dismiss possibilities.
The moment a statement is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon don’t exist.” The statement can be believed by the stated, but the statement is dogmatic. It can’t be proven.
A statement that is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon do exist.” Can be believed by the stater, but thus far proving the statement to a non-believer is unsupported by repeatable Empirical evidence. Thus, such claims are tennuous at best.
A statement that is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon probably don’t exist based on a lack of existing evidence, but it is possible that *convincing* evidence may be found in the future.” Is a critical, logical approach. It acknowledges that no *positive* evidence is present, but that *negative* evidence can’t be obtained so the possibility exists.
Any manner of experiment could be proposed to find “whatever” Supernatural Phenomenon that fails. Hypotheses are presented and found unprovable or incorrect all the time. For example, *Supernatural Force* may not be discovered as yet. I have no reason to believe it exists, but outside of people more learned than I asserting that atomic and much more sub-atomic particles exist, I have no direct *personal* experience with them to know that they do. That the science of chemistry and Physics seem to work (mostly?) I believe they probably do exist... but before they were discovered the idea would have seemed crazy. The measuring tools of the time couldn’t measure atoms, or electrons, or anything of that nature. The existence of atoms and molecules was at one time unprovable due to lack of accurate observation tools.
Good will to you all. I hope you approach life open to the infinite possibilities of the Universe!
2019/01/07 22:31:35
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
You said you had read up and were an expert on eastern European vampires
No I didn't, I said I was more familiar with them than oriental ones. Largely because being in western culture that's normally what people consider. Everything else is just you projecting.
I've probably read a little more than your average person, but then if, as you seem to be asserting, that Drs in areas of study that should know far more than me are writing information that's incorrect, then it isn't really surprising if my information is also incorrect. After all, where else is the information coming from.
But then, all you're really doing is aggressively asserting stuff from the wiki, so I'm not so sure you're as well informed as you're trying to portray.
Either way, still doesn't change the material of my argument etc etc..
Oh wow, you are going to try to hand wave your way out of this. Nevermind, you keep on thinking there are vampires out there sparkling and stuff. I hear they aren't big fans with the werewolf gang and you should avoid the Malkavians!
When you're reducing somebody's argument to straw men it's probably best to just stop.
You mean when somebody disproves your theory as a modern hoax you fell for and you still believe it? Sure.
I'm really out of gas on this one. Just cannot argue any more about it. I'll see you for a response in 20 minutes!
2019/01/08 00:15:01
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Mind you, as the ancient Greeks believed vampires to be intolerant of sunlight (Ambrogio,) I'm not sure you know what "modern" means either.
You appear incapable of taking new information on board, despite my best attempts, unless it agrees with what you've already decided and so I doubt this will prompt any reasonable discussion, you'll just shout "but wrong" and somehow feel you've won what can only be speculation..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 00:17:15
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Mind you, as the ancient Greeks believed vampires to be intolerant of sunlight (Ambrogio,) I'm not sure you know what "modern" means either.
You appear incapable of taking new information on board, despite my best attempts, unless it agrees with what you've already decided and so I doubt this will prompt any reasonable discussion, you'll just shout "but wrong" and somehow feel you've won what can only be speculation..
Modern - 1. relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past. (Because it is modern)
Hoax - 1. a humorous or malicious deception. (Because saying people with Porphyria is a malicious deception)
Greeks - Greeks did not believe in Undead Vampires. So I am not sure wtf you are talking about. Can you give me some information on that? Because everything I know says that they had some vampire like creatures in their mythology/lore, but nothing like what we consider them today.
I patiently await your next hand wave motion.
2019/01/08 03:47:33
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Please make sure to keep the discussion civil and on topic, sniping at each other does not aid the conversation and will get the thread locked.
Thanks,
ingtaer
It is kind of silly to have two threads for the same subject anyways. I am still not entirely sure why they were split up. The same conversation is going on in both, but with different people.
2019/01/08 04:26:29
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
greatbigtree wrote: A statement that is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon probably don’t exist based on a lack of existing evidence, but it is possible that *convincing* evidence may be found in the future.” Is a critical, logical approach. It acknowledges that no *positive* evidence is present, but that *negative* evidence can’t be obtained so the possibility exists.
This can varry depending on the supernatural phenomenon we are talking about. If I want to posit the existence of other planes of existence beyond our observable univers, this is indeed possible, but probably impossible to prove or disprove. If I want to posit that 300 meter long dragons exists, then it's perfectly possible to prove or disprove the existence of such a creature. It depends on the extent and the type of supernatural claim. If I claim psychic powers giving me the ability to read minds or move object without touching them, we could easily disprove such claim by submitting me to a battery of tests like it was done for several psychics and medium (all failed of course).
2019/01/08 08:55:32
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Dreadwinter wrote: It is kind of silly to have two threads for the same subject anyways. I am still not entirely sure why they were split up. The same conversation is going on in both, but with different people.
Because the stories thread was declared to be a hugbox where skepticism is not permitted. I'm not sure why the people ignoring the mod warning not to question the stories people are telling have not been dealt with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
greatbigtree wrote: One last time, a critical approach does not use “certain” terms to dismiss possibilities.
The moment a statement is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon don’t exist.” The statement can be believed by the stated, but the statement is dogmatic. It can’t be proven.
A statement that is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon do exist.” Can be believed by the stater, but thus far proving the statement to a non-believer is unsupported by repeatable Empirical evidence. Thus, such claims are tennuous at best.
A statement that is essentially, “Supernatural Phenomenon probably don’t exist based on a lack of existing evidence, but it is possible that *convincing* evidence may be found in the future.” Is a critical, logical approach. It acknowledges that no *positive* evidence is present, but that *negative* evidence can’t be obtained so the possibility exists.
That's a pretty ridiculous standard of evidence, and one that you don't use anywhere else in life. You don't say "I think probably didn't have a waffle for breakfast today, based on a lack of existing evidence that I have any memory of eating it or even own a waffle maker, but it's possible that convincing evidence could be found in the future". You acknowledge that the chance of the position being wrong is so incredibly unlikely that there's no reason to take it seriously, and you approximate it as "I didn't have a waffle for breakfast today". We all know there's no point in getting bogged down in disclaimers about how every single belief we hold could theoretically be proved wrong at some unknown point in the future, and we only talk about uncertainty when there's a non-trivial level of doubt
Same thing with supernatural stuff. There isn't even the slightest bit of credible evidence for it, the claims seem to violate well understood laws of physics, and there's no reason to believe that there's any meaningful chance that this state of evidence is going to change in the foreseeable future. So we ignore the 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that we might be wrong about saying no and simplify it to "no such thing exists".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/08 09:07:00
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2019/01/08 12:02:33
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Mind you, as the ancient Greeks believed vampires to be intolerant of sunlight (Ambrogio,) I'm not sure you know what "modern" means either.
You appear incapable of taking new information on board, despite my best attempts, unless it agrees with what you've already decided and so I doubt this will prompt any reasonable discussion, you'll just shout "but wrong" and somehow feel you've won what can only be speculation..
Modern - 1. relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past. (Because it is modern)
Hoax - 1. a humorous or malicious deception. (Because saying people with Porphyria is a malicious deception)
Greeks - Greeks did not believe in Undead Vampires. So I am not sure wtf you are talking about. Can you give me some information on that? Because everything I know says that they had some vampire like creatures in their mythology/lore, but nothing like what we consider them today.
I patiently await your next hand wave motion.
Hmmm.... now I can't recall any malevolent Greek vampires, but they did believe very strongly in bloodthirsty ghosts. I'm thinking of Tiresias the Blind Prophet, who Odyssey attracted with sheep's blood. It seemed to work on all ghosts in the Underworld, although none of them were capable of hunting the living for it. I know what I'll be researching tomorrow! I love the little tangents that pop up in these threads.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
2019/01/08 13:35:04
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Peregrine wrote: That's a pretty ridiculous standard of evidence, and one that you don't use anywhere else in life. You don't say "I think probably didn't have a waffle for breakfast today, based on a lack of existing evidence that I have any memory of eating it or even own a waffle maker, but it's possible that convincing evidence could be found in the future". You acknowledge that the chance of the position being wrong is so incredibly unlikely that there's no reason to take it seriously, and you approximate it as "I didn't have a waffle for breakfast today". We all know there's no point in getting bogged down in disclaimers about how every single belief we hold could theoretically be proved wrong at some unknown point in the future, and we only talk about uncertainty when there's a non-trivial level of doubt
The difference between the waffles and ghosts is that excluding any memory issues your experience alone is sufficient to say whether or not you had waffles. Barring personal experience ghosts, like most other things, requires some belief in an external source of information.
It's the difference between knowing Paris is a city in France because you've read about it, vs knowing Paris is a city in France because you've been there. Of course "Paris is a city in France" isn't a contentious statement even to those who haven't been there, because it's an easily testable hypothesis, so not really comparable to the supernatural.
Something more comparable might be saying "There's an undiscovered ancient city in the India". It might be true, it might not be true, it's not exactly an easy hypothesis to test. Even if you search high and low and don't find any evidence, it wouldn't be conclusive, maybe you just didn't look under the right rock.
2019/01/08 17:31:24
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Peregrine wrote: That's a pretty ridiculous standard of evidence, and one that you don't use anywhere else in life. You don't say "I think probably didn't have a waffle for breakfast today, based on a lack of existing evidence that I have any memory of eating it or even own a waffle maker, but it's possible that convincing evidence could be found in the future". You acknowledge that the chance of the position being wrong is so incredibly unlikely that there's no reason to take it seriously, and you approximate it as "I didn't have a waffle for breakfast today". We all know there's no point in getting bogged down in disclaimers about how every single belief we hold could theoretically be proved wrong at some unknown point in the future, and we only talk about uncertainty when there's a non-trivial level of doubt
The difference between the waffles and ghosts is that excluding any memory issues your experience alone is sufficient to say whether or not you had waffles. Barring personal experience ghosts, like most other things, requires some belief in an external source of information.
It's the difference between knowing Paris is a city in France because you've read about it, vs knowing Paris is a city in France because you've been there. Of course "Paris is a city in France" isn't a contentious statement even to those who haven't been there, because it's an easily testable hypothesis, so not really comparable to the supernatural.
Something more comparable might be saying "There's an undiscovered ancient city in the India". It might be true, it might not be true, it's not exactly an easy hypothesis to test. Even if you search high and low and don't find any evidence, it wouldn't be conclusive, maybe you just didn't look under the right rock.
Except that there is nothing in the claim "There's an undiscovered ancient city in India" that contradicts fundamental and well-evidenced aspects of physics. Something much more comparable would be me claiming there's an individual living in the wilds of India who can fly at supersonic speeds using the power of super-flatulence. You could go there and search high and low and not find any direct, personally-observed evidence to the contrary, but there's also no need to do any of that because it's not biologically possible for a human to fly by farting really hard.
Supernatural claims will deserve to be taken seriously the moment they can produce a reasoned, testable hypothesis that describes how the claim they're making actually functions within the context of existing observable facts about reality(or which explains how, exactly, they can violate said observed facts, or how those observed facts actually don't contradict their claims), and that hypothesis is demonstrated to be valid by experimentation according to the scientific method.
Until then, they are as credible(and as deserving of any serious intellectual inquiry) as Flatulent Indian Superman.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2019/01/08 20:36:28
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
The line gets super blurry. Sure, you can say if you had waffles today. What about the day before? Before that?
Memory is all kinds of unreliable. We know this from decades of psychological testing, not to mention hundreds of wrongly convicted defendants!
I've given plenty of official statements, and I'm shocked by what I can't 100% recall. Names, dates. Did I have a conversation, or didn't I?
I don't openly question every story I hear, but very little is exactly as people report. Conciously or subconsciously, everything we say is tweaked, massaged, and changed.
One of the most common defenses about a lot of paranormal activity is that so many people have witnessed it, it seems hard to categorically refute. Of course, the more time you spend comparing people's own witness statements with any sort of objective reality, you realize that if not liars, people are certainly creative story tellers.
2019/01/08 23:00:21
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
There’s also how the same phenomena have been reported in different ages.
Whilst neither is likely to be quite as reported, stories of UFO abductions, and Faerie abductions are remarkably similar, despite being separated by decades, if not centuries.
So it seems safe to say it wasn’t ET or Pictisies behind, there’s clearly some kind of psychological phenomena at play. What? I dunno. But there’s something behind it that is worth a scientific investigation, no?
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Sleep paralysis accounts for a lot of the aspects in those stories where someone is ‘pinned to the bed by invisible means and unable to move while aliens come in their room’. Today it’s UFOs, years ago black magic, but as frightening as it is to experience when you’re in a state of semi awakeness and being very suggestible to lights outside he window and unusual sounds, it’s not that uncommon and the explanation mundane.
2019/01/09 00:03:41
Subject: Re:Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: The difference between the waffles and ghosts is that excluding any memory issues your experience alone is sufficient to say whether or not you had waffles.
Except it isn't sufficient at all. How do you know that you weren't a victim of the Big Pancake conspiracy's mind control devices, fooled into thinking that the waffle on your plate was actually a pancake so that you'd buy more pancakes instead of waffles? How do you know that there wasn't a tiny waffle hidden in your bowl of cereal? What does a "waffle" even mean, on a spiritual level? These questions may seem absurd, but that's the kind of stuff that you have to resort to in defending supernatural claims. The difference is that, in the case of your breakfast food, everyone discards those ridiculous theories but when it comes to supernatural stories* they want to believe in some people suddenly discover this extreme need to "consider all of the possibilities".
*Or in the case of religion, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. When it's someone's pet theory we're talking about the standards of evidence used in every other situation disappear.
Something more comparable might be saying "There's an undiscovered ancient city in the India". It might be true, it might not be true, it's not exactly an easy hypothesis to test. Even if you search high and low and don't find any evidence, it wouldn't be conclusive, maybe you just didn't look under the right rock.
That's a very relevant comparison, but it leads to the opposite conclusion from yours. An ancient city was a semi-plausible theory 1000 years ago when there was lots of unexplored territory and even drawing an accurate map of a large area was extremely difficult, it isn't very plausible in the age of mapping satellites covering every square inch of terrain. At some point you have to conclude that yes, we've searched everywhere that this hypothetical city could be and the only defenses of the theory start getting far into absurdity. Even though there's a 0.00000000000000000000000000001% chance we could somehow be wrong we don't hesitate to approximate the answer as "no such city exists".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/09 08:50:06
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2019/01/16 12:49:57
Subject: Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.
Guess that's why we're not discovering new stuff in South America. Except of course we are. Whether it's entirely new, or evidence that stuff we know about was far more extensive that first thought.
As technology advances, so does our ability to find stuff. If memory serves, LIDAR was a major one, as it meant dense canopy coverage wasn't a problem.
And as I said in the other thread, I'm very much of a Fortean bent when it comes to this sort of thing. Take Cryptozoology. Some are ultimately proven real (though none of any note recently). Others are reasonably explained as misinterpreting evidence (Centaurs are thought to have been people seeing cavalry for the first time. That sort of thing). That the creature itself probably doesn't exist, I still find the investigation and findings thereof utterly fascinating.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Something more comparable might be saying "There's an undiscovered ancient city in the India". It might be true, it might not be true, it's not exactly an easy hypothesis to test. Even if you search high and low and don't find any evidence, it wouldn't be conclusive, maybe you just didn't look under the right rock.
That's a very relevant comparison, but it leads to the opposite conclusion from yours. An ancient city was a semi-plausible theory 1000 years ago when there was lots of unexplored territory and even drawing an accurate map of a large area was extremely difficult, it isn't very plausible in the age of mapping satellites covering every square inch of terrain. At some point you have to conclude that yes, we've searched everywhere that this hypothetical city could be and the only defenses of the theory start getting far into absurdity. Even though there's a 0.00000000000000000000000000001% chance we could somehow be wrong we don't hesitate to approximate the answer as "no such city exists".
We found Durrington Walls in 2004. That's a new settlement in Dorset, the most heavily archaeologically researched place in the UK and one of the top few on the planet. We've found several dozen new settlements, some of them very major ones, in Kurdistan in the last four or five years. We're finding new ones constantly in the wider Near East.
That doesn't mean very much in the search for unexplained, fantastical phenomena, mind. We know about cities and they don't defy physics. It's not a relevant comparison at all.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Take Cryptozoology. Some are ultimately proven real (though none of any note recently). Others are reasonably explained as misinterpreting evidence (Centaurs are thought to have been people seeing cavalry for the first time. That sort of thing).
Who hypothesises this? Sounds like very old-fashioned 'ancient people were really stupid and had to explain anything new by defaulting to magic' thinking.
