A case of psi right here on the Skeptiko forum?

#1
A thread on another part of the forum:
Overall answer - no. To be precise it does look as if consciousness evolved, that is that it slowly deepened and complexified over vast amounts of time based on the paleontological record. But the how and why of this evolution are mysteries, and that this evolution occurred does not amount to an understanding of consciousness itself. See my post http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/humans-and-nature-animals.781/page-2#post-18891 for one very rough suggestion. This is sort of playing with ideas. At first glance just the fact of gradual evolution seems to be incompatible with spiritual belief, but on further thought it really is not. I think some sort of hypothesis of preexisting spirit expressing in living matter through evolution is better (or the coevolution of both spirit and living matter), and would be more in accordance with psi and afterlife evidence and spiritual belief systems.
A reply:

Your response surprised me. Perhaps I misjudged you when I put you on ignore. I have reversed that decision now.
As Paul points out:
Wait, but how did you know?

~~ Paul
Hmmm... Good point.

Explain that skeptics...
 
#2
A thread on another part of the forum:


A reply:



As Paul points out:


Hmmm... Good point.

Explain that skeptics...
Easy. Some guy responded to nbtruthman and Michael was slightly interested in what was said, so he put him off ignore temporarily and liked what he said.

Or, Michael browsed the forum before logging in, found the post, read it, and logged in and unignored.

I thought 'skeptics' were proud of their critical thinking skills? I'm starting to think those may be in short supply among the people who tout them so proudly.
 
#3
Easy. Some guy responded to nbtruthman and Michael was slightly interested in what was said, so he put him off ignore temporarily and liked what he said.

Or, Michael browsed the forum before logging in, found the post, read it, and logged in and unignored.

I thought 'skeptics' were proud of their critical thinking skills? I'm starting to think those may be in short supply among the people who tout them so proudly.
Nah. That's just debunking.
 
#5
Look, we can all make wild speculations about what might have happened, I'd rather stick to the facts as I prefer to see them.
 
#6
Look, we can all make wild speculations about what might have happened, I'd rather stick to the facts as I prefer to see them.
And the wild speculation that he claimed he was ignored while he was not ignored is just valid? It seems pretty valid to me that he stumbled on the thread while not logged in. Because I don't auto - login or stay logged in to anything because of trawlers etc that can harvest passwords browser-side, I usually browse the site before I'm ready to type a response. As you can imagine, putting someone on ignore would easily be irrelevant in the case of him browsing the forum while not being logged in.

This is all very simple, actually.
 
#8
I suppose if you're going to rule out a psi explanation a priori, it's easy to hand wave it all away: "There's nothing to see here... the skeptics have it all worked out!"
 
#9
I suppose if you're going to rule out a psi explanation a priori, it's easy to hand wave it all away: "There's nothing to see here... the skeptics have it all worked out!"
Nah, but I can truly understand where your embarrassment would be unbearable, and why one would have to attempt to weasel their way out of looking like a moron. I understand you, my friend! It's okay!
 
#10
Good grief. I saw a reply to something. Curious, I switched off ignore for the page. That revealed what nbt had said. That's what made me re-think my earlier decision.

You might not know--if you don't ignore anyone--that If you do ignore people and the posts of one or more of them appear on a page, you get the option to stop ignoring content for that page. That's what I did. That's what I've done for this page, and how I know that malf raised this thread. Simples.
 
#11
Nah, but I can truly understand where your embarrassment would be unbearable, and why one would have to attempt to weasel their way out of looking like a moron. I understand you, my friend! It's okay!
What a surprise! Look at the skeptic response: Resorting to mockery rather than engaging with the discussion; labelling someone a moron for daring to challenge the current paradigm. Well let me remind you, Iyace, they laughed at Mister Ed Galileo.
 
#12
Oh we're switching roles, I get it. Let me try and give a skeptic's reply. Keep in mind my skeptic isn't very fluent. Here goes:

Anecdote anecdote anecdote. Confirmation bias. File-drawer. Randi million dollars Monopoly money. Impossible. Huh? Dennet Dawkins creationist loonies. Braaaaaains! Wishful thinking. Fraud fraudy fraudulent! Magicians! Me like Magicians!

I know my skeptic isn't very good, but I'm planning on getting the Rosetta Stone for it.
 
#15
Oh we're switching roles, I get it. Let me try and give a skeptic's reply. Keep in mind my skeptic isn't very fluent. Here goes:

Anecdote anecdote anecdote. Confirmation bias. File-drawer. Randi million dollars Monopoly money. Impossible. Huh? Dennet Dawkins creationist loonies. Braaaaaains! Wishful thinking. Fraud fraudy fraudulent! Magicians! Me like Magicians!

I know my skeptic isn't very good, but I'm planning on getting the Rosetta Stone for it.
No need for Rosetta Stone. Just have someone pick you up by your ankles, and drop you straight on your head. Then you can start making falsely incriminating threads on parapsychology forums like the rest of the morons who were dropped on their heads!
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#18
I thought 'skeptics' were proud of their critical thinking skills? I'm starting to think those may be in short supply among the people who tout them so proudly.
I think Malf is just taking the piss, but in regards to the above Massimo pointed out that some people want to be part of the skeptical movement in order to heckle/belittle others, yet lack the necessary skills or grounding in multiple disciplines for genuine skeptical inquiry. Probably why so some atheists criticize New Atheism and similar movements as religions in and of themselves.

Nah. That's just debunking.
Not really. Debunking would, it seems to me, to insist there are materialist explanations even when the immaterialist explanation fits the data better.

That said, I would agree that there are probably cases where the denial works the other way around and the materialist explanation fits better.

Look, we can all make wild speculations about what might have happened, I'd rather stick to the facts as I prefer to see them.
I think what you mean is you're sticking to the conclusion you've drawn from the facts? I don't think anyone is disputing the facts that've been laid out?

The problem here is evaluation of evidence for a particular paradigm depends on a variety of factors, so this attempted critique of immaterialists could also apply to materialists.

I suppose this comes down to another attempt to act out an impression, akin to the one you did of the WBC member? I think this one is even more flawed than that argument via impression, as the joke here assumes that the anyone accepting evidence for the paranormal is taking the definitively worse explanation for any situation.

Yet I think there's reasons to consider the accusation upon which this current impression depends on is an overreach.

It seems whether materialism or immaterialism offers the best explanation would seem to depend on the particular study or event? A person can easily reject the example in the OP of being a genuine experience of Psi while accepting another account as legitimate.

Similarly, I can accept some people have lied about being rape victims while still recognizing sexual assault is a big problem.

And people say I need to lighten up.... :)
Interesting to see you defending a trolling thread. What about healing the US vs THEM divide?!?!? Perhaps you should put yourself in the shoes of a proponent bothered by this thread and consider how it would make them feel about your position on their position on this thread's position....

<<insert appropriate smiley>>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#19
Yup. I think Massimo was right. In lieu of critical thinking ability, which would enable them to demolish others with devastating wit, some folk adopt one orthodox view or another that gives them the vicarious sense of authority and superiority. You always find some people doing this in various controversies where there is a recognised orthodoxy. Metaphorically speaking, it's over-compensation for a little willy.
 
Top