lighter_than_air
New
Here's a good one to chew on...
Here's a good one to chew on...
Personal experiences are to be avoided at all cost.
Cheers,
Bill
Right, if their minds are changed by a single incident, no matter how uncanny it seems, like Shermer's experience, then it's doubtful they are using the skeptical methodology. But if it involves repeated occurrences that were carefully analyzed and witnessed by other people, as E.Flowers mentions above, then it is certainly possible to do so.I don't think there's much doubt that personal experiences change people's mind all the time. The question is whether their minds have changed using skeptical methodology.
And what exactly is skeptical methodology?I don't think there's much doubt that personal experiences change people's mind all the time. The question is whether their minds have changed using skeptical methodology.
And what exactly is skeptical methodology?
What exactly is meant by 'psi' here?
Daryl Bem wrote this:
"The term psi denotes anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms."
When you personally experience something how could you possibly tell if is currently unexplained and therefore psi?
The skeptical methodology is to be a propagandist for atheism and the status quo, to discard evidence by imagining ways it could be tainted, to cling to metaphysical beliefs confused for scientific theory, to tediously nit pick at minor points while ignoring the whole, and to unconsciously avoid cognitive dissonance and continuously engage in motivated reasoning while believing you are rational and free of bias.I've written pretty extensively on this on this forum and I'm happy to reiterate, but I'm curious, what do you (or any other proponent who wants to chime in) think I mean by it? And conversely, what do you think it should mean?
The skeptical methodology is to be a propagandist for atheism and the status quo, to discard evidence by imagining ways it could be tainted, to cling to metaphysical beliefs confused for scientific theory, to tediously nit pick at minor points while ignoring the whole, and to unconsciously avoid cognitive dissonance and continuously engage in motivated reasoning while believing you are rational and free of bias.
Ideally skeptics would reform and simply practice science. Sadly the tendency is to persevere as adherents of scientism.
I thought that you meant using reason, logic, and all tools/means at our disposal to come to the best and most objective conclusion possible (regardless of what we may wish to be true). This includes devised and controlled experiments as well as analyzing situations that occur "in the wild" (our own, or those of others). This method needs to be applied regardless of which side of the "have had" or "have not had" personal experience you fall on. Discounting personal experience, because it has been shown to be unreliable X percent of the time, and throwing it all out and assuming that 100 percent of the anecdotal accounts must be due to "the usual suspects" is as bad as drawing conclusions based on "I experienced it." Having personal experiences, at the very least, enables you to rule out deliberate fraud (one of the usual suspects).I've written pretty extensively on this on this forum and I'm happy to reiterate, but I'm curious, what do you (or any other proponent who wants to chime in) think I mean by it? And conversely, what do you think it should mean?