Recently, I have been outting myself to friends that I am skeptical of paranormal and supernatural claims. Since there is only one other person who agrees with me, I have to argue my way through less-than-convincing stories of sounds in the night appearing to be a person walking up and down a hallway.
One friend pointed out that to him it seemed that skeptics, like most people, are narrowminded. They decide what they want to believe and that is what they stick with. I argued that skeptics know what it would take to change their mind. Using ghosts as an example, my friend countered that it is audacious of skeptics to claim to know what makes them 'real' and we cannot attribute our own goals for proof of existence. Perhaps ghosts do exist in the way that they are described; in dubious blurry photographs and anecdotes.
Granted this, why then do ghosts not appear to non-believers? Wouldn't this prove indefinately that they exist? He conceded he didn't know. Neither do I.
It seems to me to come down to two possiblities:
The first is that ghosts and other paranormal and supernatural claims are true but they are only witnessed some of the time and so cannot be tested but they can be explained by natural phenomena, appearing as though they probably don't exist.
The second is that they don't exist.
Here, a skeptic would incorporate Occam's Razor, the theory that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We could be agnostic about ghosts but that would be useless. Skeptics just like to keep things based in reality.
I then attested that gravity is a constant, we know it exists as a natural measurable force and as such there is no supernatural being or force holding things in place. My friend argued, somewhat in jest, that there could be a supernatural force holding us in place. Conceding that this is true, it is interesting to note that no one actually makes such a claim, yet many will claim that ghosts exist.
Since we know that gravity exists, I guess it would be fair to say that there is a gravity monster causing it.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Skepticism and Secular Humanism... these are a few of my favourite things.
Blog Archive
Sites and Blogs you simply must read
Skip Skeptic
- Richard
- Australia
6 comments:
The idea that Occam's Razor says that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is quite simply incorrect. This claim is simply another way of saying that having made up your mind you are not going to be convinced by evidence. (I've written on the scientific method here: http://www.braham.net/Phil/Blogs/Esoteric_New/2006/12/on-scientific-method.html).
The reason ghosts don't (usually) appear to skeptics is that:
A) Once they have appeared the person is no longer a skeptic
B) Skeptics have a contracted consciousness and their senses are unable to perceive on the level that ghosts exist on.
C) They 'rationalise' after the event and try to fit the ghost experience into something that fits in with their narrow would view. This, of course, is aligns with the so-called 'Occam's Razor' idea: if the experience doesn't fit with my preconceptions then the experience is faulty.
As to the argument about gravity, I wonder if you know much about science. No one really knows what gravity is. There is speculation about a gravity wave, but no one has ever found it. Einstein’s special theory says that gravity is identical in effect to acceleration but this doesn't explain what it is. So what, then, do you mean by a supernatural force? If you don't know what gravity is then concepts such as natural and supernatural don't really have any meaning. Einstein's concept of gravity being a dent in the space-time continuum sounds pretty supernatural to me. And the comment that gravity is constant is simply wrong.
Well, frankly I have an arts degree so no I don't know much about gravity. My argument is that it is just as silly to say that a gravity monster exists as it is to say that ghosts do.
What evidence is there for ghosts? What is a 'contracted consciousness'?
How do you know what level ghosts exist on and how do you test this?
Skeptics offer a completely rational and natural explantion for phenomena that would otherwise be attributed to paranormal claims.
I guess a supernatural force would be some thing that exists outside of the natural world. Gravity exists in the natural world: it is testable. And I'm fairly sure, despite my arts degree, that you cannot simplify Einstein's theory or concept of gravity into one sentence, to do so makes it supernatural.
Oh, I forgot to mention that Occam's Razor is quite useful. If someone says that the world will end tomorrow you would ask them to prove it. If someone told me that 2,000 years ago a man died so that I might be saved but not everyone will, I will (and do) ask for proof. If someone told you ANY extraordinary claim, regardless of who they were, would it not make sense to ask for proof. That is how you apply Occam's Razor.
Skeptics are open minded; what would it take you to change your beliefs?
I've written a lot on the scientific method on my web site (http://www.braham.net/Phil/Blogs/Esoteric_New/Esoteric.html) so I really don't want to reiterate them here. What I will say, however, is that, to use a cliche, experience transcends theory. I have had experiences that convice that there is a force that cannot be explained by science and I have also pointed out how it is that science cannot explain certain things due to assumptions.
If you don't know much about science then how can you attempt to be spokesperson for what is or is not scientific? Most skeptics I've spoken to know very little, if anything, on the philosophy of science.
Well perhaps it is a start that I will profess my ignorance hopefully encouraging discussion. This is part of the reason I started the blog. If we all learn something then that's fantastic.
I am not attempting to be a spokesperson, in fact maybe I will be clearer that these are only my opinions.
If I use experience for my beliefs then they still stand as they are since I haven't experienced anything that isn't explainable through reason.
It's unfortunate that many of these topics require so much intellect to appropriately discuss. In particular with secular humanism, I really wanted it to be slightly approachable for people as or less intelligent than myself.
I doubt I could 'convert' you, nor you me. However, I am fairly confident that were we to meet up and discuss these issues rationaly you would come away with an understanding that maybe the world is a bit more complicated than you previously thought. Hopefully, I would as well. If you are interested email me (phil@braham.net) and I'll see if we can work out a chat over a coffee.
Post a Comment