Bishop, Bosley - May 30th

[Walter Bosley]

Angel, OK, there's your position. Am I misinterpreting your position by saying that therefore you do not believe paranormal experiences are real? If that is accurate, is your reason for being here to be a contrary voice to those that do think paranormal experiences are real? Or are you open to the possibility and are hoping to come across an account that would be proven real? Just curious.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------



---------- Post added at 12:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

Our replies came in at the same time...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Angel, OK, there's your position. Am I misinterpreting your position by saying that therefore you do not believe paranormal experiences are real? If that is accurate, is your reason for being here to be a contrary voice to those that do think paranormal experiences are real? Or are you open to the possibility and are hoping to come across an account that would be proven real? Just curious.

I won't lie, I am highly skeptical. However, like any good skeptic, if proven wrong, I won't backpedal.
I have always been interested in the paranormal, and when I first started listening to the paracast, I was much more of a "believer," although still skeptical. The paracast, along with other podcast and websites has made me question these claims a lot more.
You provide no proof for your claims, so I can't believe that they are what you think they are, and I am not doing that just to be an asshole. If you could provide undeniable proof of what you claim that's been reviewed by other investigators that come to the same conclusions, I would have little choice but to agree with the conclusion.

A good example is the claim that vaccines caused autism. One study caused an uproar. However, several other studies were carried out and it was proved to be wrong.
Another thing - when people thought the world was flat, well, I would have thought the same, until it was proven wrong.

Anyway, I hope I'm being clear.

 

[Walter Bosley]

So, in your opinion, any account by a single witness without photos does not count?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So, in your opinion, any account by a single witness without photos does not count?

Exactly, but only if it's something that is extraordinary.
As they say on the interwebz - pics or it didn't happen.
Example, if my wife said she saw a bear running down the street, well, it would be strange, but I wouldn't need a picture to believe her. If she said she saw Bigfoot though, well, I would tell her that it was probably a bear, since that's a much more likely explanation.

 

[trainedobserver]

...paranormal experiences...

The "paranormal" or "supernatural" is simply normal or natural phenomena that has yet to yield itself to scientific study. Given the correct approach and significant effort any repeatable phenomena can be brought into the body of what is referred to as scientific knowledge. Science, the scientific method, is nothing more than a proven method of acquiring reliable knowledge. There are no reliable or viable alternatives to science. Faith, "revealed knowledge", and so forth are notoriously unreliable, inconsistent, and pretty much worthless in my experience.

There are a great deal of phenomena in the universe that has yet to yield its secrets to science. There are much to be done in understanding consciousness, apparent telepathic phenomena, and other mysterious mind related phenomena. Certainly there is the UAP, UFO, USO phenomena that has yet to be properly explained (at least publicly) that interests me the most in particular. And of course there are strange phenomena related to quantum physics that is yet to be properly understood which some might consider "paranormal" or outside of the current scientific understanding.

 

[Walter Bosley]

OK, well, my experiences have shown me there are things that are real that may not be witnessed by many nor recorded. My position is that some things purposely behave to avoid being seen by more than one witness and certainly to not be recorded visually. I would venture to say that I am not alone in this position. If your criteria is that it must be witnessed by more than one person and or recorded, there's no discussion. There is no discussion because I'm gonna say it happened as I interpret it, and you're going to say it could not have. That's the way it is.

 

[trainedobserver]

So, in your opinion, any account by a single witness without photos does not count?

This is an amazing question coming from a former FBI and AFOSI trained individual. I am astounded.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Trainedobserver: This may pain you, but we mostly agree... Not on every point, but mostly

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

 

[Angel of Ioren]

OK, well, my experiences have shown me there are things that are real that may not be witnessed by many nor recorded. My position is that some things purposely behave to avoid being seen by more than one witness and certainly to not be recorded visually. I would venture to say that I am not alone in this position. If your criteria is that it must be witnessed by more than one person and or recorded, there's no discussion. There is no discussion because I'm gonna say it happened as I interpret it, and you're going to say it could not have. That's the way it is.

Exactly. I will never say that you didn't see what you say you saw, but I will say that there's a different way of interpreting it. You're right, that's the way it is.

The "paranormal" or "supernatural" is simply normal or natural phenomena that has yet to yield itself to scientific study. Given the correct approach and significant effort any repeatable phenomena can be brought into the body of what is referred to as scientific knowledge. Science, the scientific method, is nothing more than a proven method of acquiring reliable knowledge. There are no reliable or viable alternatives to science. Faith, "revealed knowledge", and so forth are notoriously unreliable, inconsistent, and pretty much worthless in my experience.

Trainedobserver always manages to say what I'm thinking in a much better way - thanks.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Trained observer: Why should this astound you?? Are you an investigator by profession? If so, you're going to tell me you never worked a case wherein one witness' testimony made a difference??? If not, from where do you get your perception of investigations?

 

[trainedobserver]

This may pain you ...

That is a incorrect assumption on your part.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Trained observer: Why should this astound you?? Are you an investigator by profession? If so, you're going to tell me you never worked a case wherein one witness' testimony made a difference??? If not, from where do you get your perception of investigations?

What kind of justice system do you guys have down there? Wouldn't that one witness need evidence to support what he saw? I doubt that the word of one person would be able to convict someone.

 

[trainedobserver]

where do you get your perception of investigations?

Walter, I have worked in the high tech industry (super computers mostly) my entire career (~30 years), often behind locked doors in R&D labs with my head buried in schematics and high speed analyzer screens. I have lost count of the reports and technical documents I have written over the years (which is all I do now). I can assure you that one off events are completely useless in building a case for design change or problem solution proposals. My experience in problem solving and investigation is not entirely 'technical' as I have managed technical groups and had to deal with more than one sticky human issue or two. It has been my experience that unsubstantiated single witness testimony is difficult to use in building cases, justifying changes, or in making reliable and informed decisions.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Trainedobserver: Re: my 'pain you' comment: Haha LOL, fair enough

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 PM ----------

trainedobserver: I totally get the criteria and how it fits your field. But it doesn't apply exactly that way in everything and for valid reasons. I'm not saying that your approach isn't valid, but it's not applicable across the board, necessarily.

 

[Paul Kimball]

So, in your opinion, any account by a single witness without photos does not count?

I will butt in here to say that in my opinion, this is absolutely the case. Oh, sure, it counts for that person, but that's as far as it goes. Dogmatism comes when that person asserts what he / she saw / experienced was real as they interpret it, and then expect anyone else to agree with them.

That's called religion.

 

[trainedobserver]

I'm not saying that your approach isn't valid, but it's not applicable across the board, necessarily.

Could you provide a single example?

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

Are you serious? You are actually saying that the very nature of science precludes anyone being dogmatic in or about science? And that is somehow disparaging on my background and experience?? Wow...OK

I'm having a little trouble following your conversation when you dip back into the stream of posts and edit previous ones with new questions. You seem to be referring to this:

"Real science isn't "dogmatic", in fact dogmatism is contrary to the fundamental tenants of science. It has been my experience that those who attempt to describe science in the language of religion have a gross misunderstanding of what science and the scientific method actually are. I find this extremely surprising coming from someone with your background and training Walter."

You seem to be confusing "real science" with individual human beings and personalities. And yes, I find the conversation surprising given the amount of training you have undoubtedly received in science and the standards of evidence. Perhaps I have made some incorrect assumptions about FBI and AFOSI training, if so I apologize. My experience with the FBI is limited to one 'interview' I was subjected to and my experience with the AFOSI is zero.

I would also just like to add that I have not intended to insult or disparage you Walter. I realize I can come across as a bit terse at times.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Guys, I saw what I saw. I can't prove it to you. I shared the experience with listeners. For reasons I can't sufficiently explain here, I am confident with my interpretation of the event. A couple of years ago, I came to the realization that the cause to prove is going nowhere. Like disclosure, it won't happen the way so many hope it will. Paranormal investigators long before us have applied the scientific method to the field and found it sorely lacking in some cases. For those who insist on the scientific method -- and I am not disparaging that, just making an observation -- you're just going to have to accept that you will not find the encompassing conclusive answer to the paranormal question there. It will persist in spite of those efforts. Perhaps it is easier to simply conclude it's in the mind of the beholder and not real in the sense some believe it is. For the record, the reason I was successful at what I did in AFOSI is because I focused on the job: hunting spies and running CE ops, investigating federal criminal offenses, not investigating the paranormal.

I must bow out of this thread as it is a circular argument and I have too much else to do.

See you on the show!!

 

[trainedobserver]

For those who insist on the scientific method

You have yet to describe what you think is a viable alternative to the scientific method. You also haven't provided a example of where it wouldn't work. I don't think that is an unreasonable thing for me to ask you to provide. It is unfair and dare I say unreasonable to say science doesn't work without providing me with what you consider to be a viable alternative.

you will not find the encompassing conclusive answer to the paranormal question there

What do you consider the paranormal question to be?

Perhaps it is easier to simply conclude it's in the mind of the beholder and not real in the sense some believe it is.

That is an unfair and unfounded characterization you are making there Walter.

I must bow out of this thread as it is a circular argument and I have too much else to do.

If you would simply provide an example of something other than science that provides reliable results and an example of something where the scientific method doesn't apply perhaps it would not appear to be so circular to you. I feel I have answered your questions in as a straight forward and complete manner as I possibly can. I don't think you can accuse me of being obtuse or unreasonable can you?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Well it looks like the science fundamentalists have their quantum knickers in a gordian knot lol. Lets face it guys it's just a case of ...since i don't believe you, then it's not true, right?

Have any of you had a paranormal experience? If so let's hear about it/them. Let us hear how you rationalized them with your mundane explanations. You seem eager and keen to debunk any mention of others having one. If you've never had a paranormal experience then how can you say, definitively, that they don't exist? You are just fundamentalists telling people what to do , how to think.

So why are you people really here? For the debates? You seem to not have any or much belief in any of the subjects discussed on the forums rather than have a penchant for debunking.

Tell me Phil have you used a micro-wave oven recently, driven a car, taken medicine, undergone surgery, or (ah-hem) used a computer recently?

Yes to all of the above. And what does this mean anyway? Does it mean that because i use the aforementioned items that i am going to erect a monument to Henry ford or Steve Jobs and prostrate myself before them and profess my adoration?
Just because "science" can't find a explanation for paranormal events does not mean that paranormal events aren't real. The problem is that people like yourselves use science as a scapegoat to further your own opinions.

So far, nothing paranormal (in the common meaning of the word, aka supernatural) has been proven to exist, so I can't name any. I'm looking forward to the day that someone wins the JREF's million dollar challenge. Maybe you can do it with your remote viewing? Maybe I'm just being difficult. Sorry.

And to top it all off you use derision and sarcasm in an to attempt to prove your superiority.

Real science isn't "dogmatic", in fact dogmatism is contrary to the fundamental tenants of science

Hmmm, fundamental ,tenants. Sounds kinda religious to me. Anyway it's not that science is in anyway a religion, it's just those who use it for their explanation as to why something should or should not be, use science as their fallback, religiously.

---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

I will butt in here to say that in my opinion, this is absolutely the case. Oh, sure, it counts for that person, but that's as far as it goes. Dogmatism comes when that person asserts what he / she saw / experienced was real as they interpret it, and then expect anyone else to agree with them. That's called religion.

Quite right Paul.
You could also say this...
Dogmatism comes when a person asserts what you / they saw / experienced can be explained by science , and then expect anyone else to agree with them. That's called religion.

It all boils down to whether you believe the story teller or not. The story teller ends up not being able to convince some people that the event occurred. The disbelievers will never believe that the event occurred without extraordinary evidence whether or not this is provided by science or other. Neither side can provide the other with any satisfaction (go the stones!!) in regards to the subject so it ends up being a long and (weary) winding road (yay Beatles!!).

So in the end Walter is free to recount his anecdotes to those who wish to listen to them and those who disagree,disbelieve are free to not. I personally like hearing paranormal tales from posters here on these forums. I may not believe or agree with them but the are worthy of a listen nonetheless.

So come on Angel, Trained Obs. had any paranormal experiences that you want to share with us? Anyone else? Paul?, Kieran?. Come on now, we won't bite.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

So come on Angel, Trained Obs. had any paranormal experiences that you want to share with us? Anyone else? Paul?, Kieran?. Come on now, we won't bite.

I guess you didn't read the part where I mentioned I had some experiences and I was able to explain them without resorting to aliens, gods, or ghosts. Also, I think you got some of the quotes messed up since you attributed certain quotes to the wrong people. That's probably not your fault since I was having trouble with that yesterday.

It all boils down to whether you believe the story teller or not. The story teller ends up not being able to convince some people that the event occurred. The disbelievers will never believe that the event occurred without extraordinary evidence whether or not this is provided by science or other. Neither side can provide the other with any satisfaction (go the stones!!) in regards to the subject so it ends up being a long and (weary) winding road (yay Beatles!!).

You hit the nail on the head, and I never said I didn't believe Mr. Bosley since the events may have occurred to him in one way or another. All I'm saying is that there are ways to interpret what he's seen in ways that are understood and rooted in reality. And Trained Observer clearly said that there are many things that science does not understand yet, some of which are possibly responsable for paranormal experiences.
I'm far from fundamental and dogmatic - all I require is proof for you to change my point of view. You cant do that with a fundamentalist.