Skeptics...a philosophical discussion

[Facius_Cardan]

Yes, terms and labeling are nasty habits, but would you agree that if we remove the 'mess' from the field, there would be something paranormal at the core?

Who knows? We would have to clean up the mess first and then try to see what's left there, but that may be too difficult a task for just a few to handle. Sometimes I think the whole UFO subject is a case of collective pareidolia, a giant rock upon which everyone project their personal beliefs/desbeliefs and, in return, see what they want to see. People come and go with the flow of time, but the rock will always remain there...

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Well I hope you reconsider your admiration for Shermer who doesn't seem to have any problem spouting complete lies as truth. Randi is a different story. His decades as a magician gave him all the background he needed to expose a certain type of fraudster with great credibility. All Shermer did was jump from one intellectual extreme, at one time he was a fundamentalist Christian who believed in the literal truth of the Bible, to another. Shermer's claims about UFOs betray his complete ignorance on the phenomenon. I'd happily take him on in a debate about the subject . . . . and win!

Randi rarely touches the topic of UFOs because that's not something that he's interested in disproving. Belief that UFOs are something paranormal does not hurt anyone. I'm sure that most people here are all for Randi's quest to out fraudsters (like Sylvia Browne) and to ultimately find someone that can prove the existence of the paranormal (with the million dollar challenge). To those that have mentioned above that he has deliberately lied, I would like to know when, since from what i understand, he's not one that fudges data to prove his point. I know Shermer was a fundamentalist Christian and then he saw the light (so to speak). He does come off as a bit of an asshole, and I don't agree with some thing he says (such as his politics - he's ultra libertarian), but I share his point of view when it comes to the paranormal.

Most skeptics don't really care about UFOs like they do about garbage like psychic powers and all that. That's something that can be proven to be false by testing the claimant. UFOs can't be tested and most skeptics (including Shermer and Randi, and Dunning) like to leave them as unknown, or use the most plausible explanation until something better can be used instead. As an example, if the lighthouse explanation for the Bentwaters case is proven to be wrong by new evidence, say a clear photographe of the craft, then they will gladly scrap the original explainable and use the new evidence. That's what science does.

 

[trainedobserver]

...if you're far-and-removed from any semblance of belief in UFO's or the other paranormal phenomena discussed here, I'd say no, you shouldn't be here.

Belief is highly overrated.

 

[SurferMike]

I am proud to call myself a skeptic and it's all just a matter of semantics anyway. Like ufo means something unidentified in the sky to some and an alien vehicle to others. I know that one of the types of ufo exists and am waiting for decent evidence of the other kind. I like listening to the Paracast and do not think that other listeners have the right to run me off just because my questions make them uncomfortable. It's a free country. Here are other topics that I have run through my critical thinking algorithm:

Moon Landings - we went there, I believe it 100%

God - Almost certainly imaginary, say 99.9999%. This includes the Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, Christian, Islamic and all other versions.

Loch Ness monster - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos - almost certainly fictitious (99.999%). I still like reading about it though.

UFOs - People see something in the sky and they can't identify it, 100%

Aliens or cryptos in flying saucers - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos - almost certainly fictitious with probability 99.9%. I still like reading about them.

Crop circles - almost certainly hoaxes, with probability 99.99%

Betty and Barney Hill - based on Betty's before and after beliefs in the topic, almost certainly fictitious (99.9%). She started out a believer and just kept getting crazier about it and there were still people who believed her. Barney seemed mostly just along for the ride.

Billy Maier - a hoaxer with probability of 99.999999%

Bigfoot - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos. Almost certainly fictitious (99%) but I like to read the stories.

9/11 - I think that this happened pretty much the way it appeared to happen. I don't think any of the conspiracy theorists have come close to proving their cases. I'm 100% convinced of this.

Alien abductions - supported only by eyewitness testimony. It seems likely that most reports are caused by fairly common brain malfunctions of which sleep paralysis is only one example. 99.9999% but I still like reading the stories.

Cattle mutilation - this seems like the work of scavengers and insects to me, 99.999% worth.

Whitley Strieber ongoing saga - I think he's an extreme example of certain types of brain function gone awry and he seems to actually believe what he's claiming. I no longer find him interesting to read about though. 99.99999%

Face on Mars - There are still people who think that Hoagland may be right, even after the follow-up photos of the area and I don't understand these people. I am 99.99999% convinced that there's nothing to his particular brand of Mars storytelling.

Roswell - It seems to me that this was probably a Mogul balloon and some stories that grew and grew in the retelling over the years. 99.99999%. Fun to read about though.

John Edward - I think he does something called cold reading combined with selective editing of the tapings of his sessions. I think it very unlikely that spirits are lingering around giving cryptic clues using people's first initials. 99.99999% a charlatan and a fairly cruel and exploitative one at that.

Kennedy assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and I'm 95% sure of this. I used to like reading the conspiracy theories but in the end they never really convinced me. There's enough ambiguity in the whole case to leave room for doubt though.

Linda Moulton Howe - seems to believe just about everything that comes her way and her credibility as a journalist is very low in my estimation, maybe 10%.

Televangelists - I think that many are sincere but that most of them are just in it for the money. It seems very cynical to me especially when one is exposed as a hypocrite every now and then. Mostly (99.99%) it just seems to be a way to get money from the most uneducated and gullible among us.

Dowsing - It doesn't seem to work under controlled conditions but there are so many stories of how it works that maybe there's something to it. For me, the probability that it really works is less than 1%.

Cold fusion - Most experts seem to think that this is not possible and I have to side with the experts since I don't know very much about the physics involved. Still, I give it a 2% chance of being real because there are other experts who hold out some hope.

ESP - Physics doesn't seem to have identified a mechanism for this, but the stories are too many to ignore. I give ESP a 3% chance of having some kind of reality.

Remote viewing - This seems to be mostly pattern-matching after the fact, but who know? I'm 99% sure it's bogus though.

Telekinesis - Uri Geller is a proven fraud but that doesn't prove that it isn't real. Even so, I'm 99.99% sure that it's not real.

Randi - He is very good exposing nonsense and he puts his money where his mouth is. Still, I have my doubts about his complete negativity. I trust him about 99%.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I agree with you on pretty much everything you said up there.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

I'm sure that most people here are all for Randi's quest to out fraudsters (like Sylvia Browne) and to ultimately find someone that can prove the existence of the paranormal (with the million dollar challenge).

That's probably never going to happen. But *not* for the reasons one would initially assume.

You should read Greg Taylor's "The Myth of The Million Dollar Chanllenge". Here's an excerpt:

For ten years, the modern skeptical movement has wielded a cudgel against claims of the paranormal: the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. In many debates over the possibility of psi abilities, the Challenge provides a final word for one side..."has so-and-so applied for the Challenge?" The financial reward offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation is seen by many skeptics as providing an irresistible motivation for anybody with paranormal ability - after all, if someone could genuinely exhibit such powers, surely they would step forward to take the million?
However, after ten years, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) says nobody has even got past their preliminary testing. Furthermore, none of the 'big fish' - medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne - have applied (although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further). And now, perhaps as a result of that fact, James Randi has announced that the Challenge will come to an end in two years, on March 6th, 2010.
But does the challenge really make a statement about the existence of the paranormal and/or psi abilities? According to paranormal investigator Loyd Auerbach (who, like Randi, is a member of the magic fraternity):

"The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd on many levels.
The procedures for the Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple "outs" for Randi and the JREF that any discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary human performance would think twice about (and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like)."
​

Incidentally, a new book has just come up dealing with Randi and his challenge: Randi's Prize: What Sceptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They Are Wrong, and Why It Matters , by Robert Mcluhan:

Randi's Prize is a new non-fiction book about the paranormal, examining the arguments for and against.​

The 'prize' of the title is the Million Dollar Challenge offered by stage magician James Randi for anyone who passes his test for psychic powers. So far, Randi says, no one has even passed the preliminaries. This confirms the belief held by sceptics and many scientists that so-called 'psychics' are delusional or dishonest.
​

Randi's Prize accepts that this may sometimes be the case, but strongly sympathises with scientists who have investigated paranormal claims in depth and consider some of what they have observed to be genuinely anomalous. It finds the arguments of well-known sceptics like Randi, Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore less convincing.The book proposes that we need to develop a more mature and discerning approach to these hugely challenging issues (subtitle: what sceptics say about the paranormal, why they are wrong and why it matters).
​

 

[tyder001]

Agree with some disagree on others:

Moon landing: Oh yeah we were there.

John Glenn orbiting the moon: No, of course not it was a typo and done in a stream of consciousness and as for spelling errors we have always been tolerent of each other on that because we do get overly passionate at times and don't stop to spell check.

ESP: Honestly if you read the literature there is no doubt that something is going on in that. However, I think it is Stacey Horn who has written an interesting book on that particular topic. I do reccommend it.

John Edwards: I don't think he's a fraud or cruel. I have not seen anything that convinces me he speaks to the departed. I leave that one in my file of "I'd have to see it to beleive it." but then again that is where I leave u.f.o. stuff so I have a big file.

I have had my own experience with "knowing" and other so called "paranormal" experience so I do know (for myself) that there is more than jimmy randi understands going on with the universe. However, I can't "perform" on demand so I guess that is a never ending argument.

God: Yes, and I have on many post here written why and how I beleive this. Old white man in the sky with an attitude? No. And to my friend Trained Observer before you ask No, I can't really give you a physical description or point to a spot in the room. I do have my inner life and while that isn't enough to convince an atheist it's enough for me to continue my journey. Besides it's not like I'm going out and starting a new religion.

Evolution: This seems to be misunderstood. The minute you say I think there is reason for life in the universe and purpose to our world some folks get angry and label you an anti evolution six day creationist. I personally have no question about the reality of evolution. It's the reductionist bully pullpit I have problems with.

Angel and other skeptics being here: I find Angel very polite and courtesous and I enjoy talking with him. I also find him to have blinders on when it comes to certain folks like Randi and Schermer and skeptical thoughts. All in all I think we have some pretty good conversations and agree to disagree without name calling and belittling others.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

Red_Pill_Junkie: Great Post.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

I am proud to call myself a skeptic and it's all just a matter of semantics anyway. Like ufo means something unidentified in the sky to some and an alien vehicle to others. I know that one of the types of ufo exists and am waiting for decent evidence of the other kind. I like listening to the Paracast and do not think that other listeners have the right to run me off just because my questions make them uncomfortable. It's a free country. Here are other topics that I have run through my critical thinking algorithm:

Moon Landings - we went there, I believe it 100%

God - Almost certainly imaginary, say 99.9999%. This includes the Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, Christian, Islamic and all other versions.

Loch Ness monster - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos - almost certainly fictitious (99.999%). I still like reading about it though.

UFOs - People see something in the sky and they can't identify it, 100%

Aliens or cryptos in flying saucers - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos - almost certainly fictitious with probability 99.9%. I still like reading about them.

Crop circles - almost certainly hoaxes, with probability 99.99%

Betty and Barney Hill - based on Betty's before and after beliefs in the topic, almost certainly fictitious (99.9%). She started out a believer and just kept getting crazier about it and there were still people who believed her. Barney seemed mostly just along for the ride.

Billy Maier - a hoaxer with probability of 99.999999%

Bigfoot - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos. Almost certainly fictitious (99%) but I like to read the stories.

9/11 - I think that this happened pretty much the way it appeared to happen. I don't think any of the conspiracy theorists have come close to proving their cases. I'm 100% convinced of this.

Alien abductions - supported only by eyewitness testimony. It seems likely that most reports are caused by fairly common brain malfunctions of which sleep paralysis is only one example. 99.9999% but I still like reading the stories.

Cattle mutilation - this seems like the work of scavengers and insects to me, 99.999% worth.

Whitley Strieber ongoing saga - I think he's an extreme example of certain types of brain function gone awry and he seems to actually believe what he's claiming. I no longer find him interesting to read about though. 99.99999%

Face on Mars - There are still people who think that Hoagland may be right, even after the follow-up photos of the area and I don't understand these people. I am 99.99999% convinced that there's nothing to his particular brand of Mars storytelling.

Roswell - It seems to me that this was probably a Mogul balloon and some stories that grew and grew in the retelling over the years. 99.99999%. Fun to read about though.

John Edward - I think he does something called cold reading combined with selective editing of the tapings of his sessions. I think it very unlikely that spirits are lingering around giving cryptic clues using people's first initials. 99.99999% a charlatan and a fairly cruel and exploitative one at that.

Kennedy assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and I'm 95% sure of this. I used to like reading the conspiracy theories but in the end they never really convinced me. There's enough ambiguity in the whole case to leave room for doubt though.

Linda Moulton Howe - seems to believe just about everything that comes her way and her credibility as a journalist is very low in my estimation, maybe 10%.

Televangelists - I think that many are sincere but that most of them are just in it for the money. It seems very cynical to me especially when one is exposed as a hypocrite every now and then. Mostly (99.99%) it just seems to be a way to get money from the most uneducated and gullible among us.

Dowsing - It doesn't seem to work under controlled conditions but there are so many stories of how it works that maybe there's something to it. For me, the probability that it really works is less than 1%.

Cold fusion - Most experts seem to think that this is not possible and I have to side with the experts since I don't know very much about the physics involved. Still, I give it a 2% chance of being real because there are other experts who hold out some hope.

ESP - Physics doesn't seem to have identified a mechanism for this, but the stories are too many to ignore. I give ESP a 3% chance of having some kind of reality.

Remote viewing - This seems to be mostly pattern-matching after the fact, but who know? I'm 99% sure it's bogus though.

Telekinesis - Uri Geller is a proven fraud but that doesn't prove that it isn't real. Even so, I'm 99.99% sure that it's not real.

Randi - He is very good exposing nonsense and he puts his money where his mouth is. Still, I have my doubts about his complete negativity. I trust him about 99%.

I agree with a lot of that but couldn't disagree more about Barney and Betty Hill and UFO abductions in general. You provided the same line about Betty corrupting Barney like so many other sceptics do while failing to acknowledge that Barney consciously recalled seeing what looked to him like alien beings through his binoculars from day one. This wasn't a detail recalled later, he arrived home believing it that night/morning. Argue all you want that Betty implanted the notion of abduction into him but she certainly didn't implant the idea of aliens. If anything only the reverse could be true because Barney recalled seeing alien beings that night, Betty did not.

And then there are the cases of Kelly Cahill and the Allagash four which are as good if not stronger than the Hill account.

I'll certainly concede that there are a lot of cases of alleged alien abductions out there that are the result of sleep paralysis, me-too wish fulfillment, and hypnotically induced confabulation. Hell, all ya' gotta' do is look at the MILAB nonsense to know that. But there are a handful of cases like the ones I mentioned above where the circumstantial evidence (I concede there is no concrete proof.) is strong. That doesn't necessarily mean they were abducted by aliens but I believe the evidence strongly suggests that something happened to them that science currently has no satisfactory explanation for.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

That's probably never going to happen. But *not* for the reasons one would initially assume.

You should read Greg Taylor's "The Myth of The Million Dollar Chanllenge". Here's an excerpt:

For ten years, the modern skeptical movement has wielded a cudgel against claims of the paranormal: the James Randi Million Dollar Challenge. In many debates over the possibility of psi abilities, the Challenge provides a final word for one side..."has so-and-so applied for the Challenge?" The financial reward offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation is seen by many skeptics as providing an irresistible motivation for anybody with paranormal ability - after all, if someone could genuinely exhibit such powers, surely they would step forward to take the million?
However, after ten years, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) says nobody has even got past their preliminary testing. Furthermore, none of the 'big fish' - medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne - have applied (although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further). And now, perhaps as a result of that fact, James Randi has announced that the Challenge will come to an end in two years, on March 6th, 2010.
But does the challenge really make a statement about the existence of the paranormal and/or psi abilities? According to paranormal investigator Loyd Auerbach (who, like Randi, is a member of the magic fraternity):

"The suggestion that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge, is absurd on many levels.
The procedures for the Challenge included several hurdles in favor of, and multiple "outs" for Randi and the JREF that any discerning individual capable of any kind of extraordinary human performance would think twice about (and here I'm not just referring to psychics and the like)."
​

Incidentally, a new book has just come up dealing with Randi and his challenge: Randi's Prize: What Sceptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They Are Wrong, and Why It Matters , by Robert Mcluhan:

Randi's Prize is a new non-fiction book about the paranormal, examining the arguments for and against.​

The 'prize' of the title is the Million Dollar Challenge offered by stage magician James Randi for anyone who passes his test for psychic powers. So far, Randi says, no one has even passed the preliminaries. This confirms the belief held by sceptics and many scientists that so-called 'psychics' are delusional or dishonest.
​

Randi's Prize accepts that this may sometimes be the case, but strongly sympathises with scientists who have investigated paranormal claims in depth and consider some of what they have observed to be genuinely anomalous. It finds the arguments of well-known sceptics like Randi, Ray Hyman, Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore less convincing.The book proposes that we need to develop a more mature and discerning approach to these hugely challenging issues (subtitle: what sceptics say about the paranormal, why they are wrong and why it matters).
​

Unfortunately, the info you provide is outdated - the challenge is still there. You can even read about it here: Challenge Info

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

Angel and other skeptics being here: I find Angel very polite and courtesous and I enjoy talking with him. I also find him to have blinders on when it comes to certain folks like Randi and Schermer and skeptical thoughts. All in all I think we have some pretty good conversations and agree to disagree without name calling and belittling others.

Tyder sucks - science rules!!!

Big smiley on that, you know I'm just kidding and I have no stake in any of this stuff. I just offer my opinion - I have no illusion that I could be totally wrong about everything.



---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

And then there are the cases of Kelly Cahill and the Allagash four which are as good if not stronger than the Hill account.

The Alagash four were struggling artists that decided to make comic books out of what they say happened.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Unfortunately, the info you provide is outdated - the challenge is still there. You can even read about it here: Challenge Info

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------



Tyder sucks - science rules!!!

Big smiley on that, you know I'm just kidding and I have no stake in any of this stuff. I just offer my opinion - I have no illusion that I could be totally wrong about everything.



---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------



The Alagash four were struggling artists that decided to make comic books out of what they say happened.

Yeah, sure. That's brilliant, Angelo.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

I also find him to have blinders on when it comes to certain folks like Randi and Schermer and skeptical thoughts. All in all I think we have some pretty good conversations and agree to disagree without name calling and belittling others.

I know I may get bashed for this but I think James Randi, though he was right sometimes, approached the subject in the wrong manner. He had a clear penchant for the spectacular and frequently tried to prove his point in a showman-like fashion (maybe because he was a magician). I think one can be a skeptic, debunker or plain denier without making a show out of it, presenting wild west style million dollar rewards for those able to demonstrate the reality of a paranormal phenomenon. You can dismantle a lie or wrong conception by presenting your arguments in a logic and coherent way, without making fun of anyone. For me, Randi was wrong when he assumed that posture of the owner who makes his dog sniff its pee to show him how what it did was wrong. And that attitude certainly affects the way his often valid obervations will be remembered..

 

[spacebrother]

I'm not "proud" of any of my opinions or other attitudes--they are what they are. Being "99.999%" sure of anything "paranormal" tends to shut off possibilities, however remote. I try not to believe or disbelieve in anything; my opinion changes with new information and how reliable I find it to be. Perhaps my perception of open-ended inquiry leaves the door open, which I find more enjoyable.

I am 99.999% sure that there were moon landings. I can't be 100% sure because I didn't go there.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'm not "proud" of any of my opinions or other attitudes--they are what they are. Being "99.999%" sure of anything "paranormal" tends to shut off possibilities, however remote. I try not to believe or disbelieve in anything; my opinion changes with new information and how reliable I find it to be. Perhaps my perception of open-ended inquiry leaves the door open, which I find more enjoyable.

I am 99.999% sure that there were moon landings. I can't be 100% sure because I didn't go there.

Well said Greg.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

I am proud to call myself a skeptic and it's all just a matter of semantics anyway. Like ufo means something unidentified in the sky to some and an alien vehicle to others. I know that one of the types of ufo exists and am waiting for decent evidence of the other kind. I like listening to the Paracast and do not think that other listeners have the right to run me off just because my questions make them uncomfortable. It's a free country. Here are other topics that I have run through my critical thinking algorithm: Moon Landings - we went there, I believe it 100% God - Almost certainly imaginary, say 99.9999%. This includes the Egyptian, Greek, Jewish, Christian, Islamic and all other versions. Loch Ness monster - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos - almost certainly fictitious (99.999%). I still like reading about it though. UFOs - People see something in the sky and they can't identify it, 100% Aliens or cryptos in flying saucers - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos - almost certainly fictitious with probability 99.9%. I still like reading about them. Crop circles - almost certainly hoaxes, with probability 99.99% Betty and Barney Hill - based on Betty's before and after beliefs in the topic, almost certainly fictitious (99.9%). She started out a believer and just kept getting crazier about it and there were still people who believed her. Barney seemed mostly just along for the ride. Billy Maier - a hoaxer with probability of 99.999999% Bigfoot - supported only by eyewitness testimony and inconclusive photos. Almost certainly fictitious (99%) but I like to read the stories. 9/11 - I think that this happened pretty much the way it appeared to happen. I don't think any of the conspiracy theorists have come close to proving their cases. I'm 100% convinced of this. Alien abductions - supported only by eyewitness testimony. It seems likely that most reports are caused by fairly common brain malfunctions of which sleep paralysis is only one example. 99.9999% but I still like reading the stories. Cattle mutilation - this seems like the work of scavengers and insects to me, 99.999% worth. Whitley Strieber ongoing saga - I think he's an extreme example of certain types of brain function gone awry and he seems to actually believe what he's claiming. I no longer find him interesting to read about though. 99.99999% Face on Mars - There are still people who think that Hoagland may be right, even after the follow-up photos of the area and I don't understand these people. I am 99.99999% convinced that there's nothing to his particular brand of Mars storytelling. Roswell - It seems to me that this was probably a Mogul balloon and some stories that grew and grew in the retelling over the years. 99.99999%. Fun to read about though. John Edward - I think he does something called cold reading combined with selective editing of the tapings of his sessions. I think it very unlikely that spirits are lingering around giving cryptic clues using people's first initials. 99.99999% a charlatan and a fairly cruel and exploitative one at that. Kennedy assassination - Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and I'm 95% sure of this. I used to like reading the conspiracy theories but in the end they never really convinced me. There's enough ambiguity in the whole case to leave room for doubt though. Linda Moulton Howe - seems to believe just about everything that comes her way and her credibility as a journalist is very low in my estimation, maybe 10%. Televangelists - I think that many are sincere but that most of them are just in it for the money. It seems very cynical to me especially when one is exposed as a hypocrite every now and then. Mostly (99.99%) it just seems to be a way to get money from the most uneducated and gullible among us. Dowsing - It doesn't seem to work under controlled conditions but there are so many stories of how it works that maybe there's something to it. For me, the probability that it really works is less than 1%. Cold fusion - Most experts seem to think that this is not possible and I have to side with the experts since I don't know very much about the physics involved. Still, I give it a 2% chance of being real because there are other experts who hold out some hope. ESP - Physics doesn't seem to have identified a mechanism for this, but the stories are too many to ignore. I give ESP a 3% chance of having some kind of reality. Remote viewing - This seems to be mostly pattern-matching after the fact, but who know? I'm 99% sure it's bogus though. Telekinesis - Uri Geller is a proven fraud but that doesn't prove that it isn't real. Even so, I'm 99.99% sure that it's not real. Randi - He is very good exposing nonsense and he puts his money where his mouth is. Still, I have my doubts about his complete negativity. I trust him about 99%.

I'm suprised with the amount of certainties you have and the amazing ability of quantifying them with such precision. If only all my doubts could be solved in such straightforward manner, with percentages and all...

 

[tyder001]

Well while John Glenn was orbiting the moon he sent back some great pics. I think you can find some of em at enterprisemission.com which is the Hoagland website. I mean the dude hasn't cleaned that site up since 1996 so they could be there.

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Unfortunately, the info you provide is outdated - the challenge is still there. You can even read about it here: Challenge Info
.

Greg wrote that article in 2008, back when the Randi foundation was announcing the end of challenge by 2010.

The biased methods in which it is conducted, and all the arguments against why the challenge is unscientific —despite the fact that's the way they advertise it— still stands nevertheless.

The book I mention was released this year, though

 

[tyder001]

Matter of fact Michael Prescott has a really good blog and some links to the book from there. It's really an eye opener. Unless of course you prefer to stay asleep. I'm 99.99.99999999% sure of it. How do I know? Back off man I'm a Scientist.

 

[saucerwench]

When I hear someone like Clifford Stone recount all his NewAgey sounding ET-related 'experiences', I am instantly disbelieving. But I have to think more deeply about why that is. What if everything he says in fact happened? I think the best place for any mind to be, is to realize that anything is possible, but be neither close minded, meanly cynical, or true believee gullible like a cult follower wannabee. I will admit that sometimes when I would cynically come against someone's angle they were presenting, I deep down had an ax to grind, a personal bias, toward it/him/her/them. But I am by nature, accutely introspective, while other people, like some debunkers and believers, have this --absent-- from their neuro'hardwiring. Every person in everyday life has family members of these descriptions. This is a thought-provoking thread.

 

[trainedobserver]

The Alagash four were struggling artists that decided to make comic books out of what they say happened.

Which you can get on eBay for $4.95 + $4.00 shipping. I doubt many were printed or that they made much if any money on it.

 

[Will Penguin]

I'm not "proud" of any of my opinions or other attitudes--they are what they are. Being "99.999%" sure of anything "paranormal" tends to shut off possibilities, however remote. I try not to believe or disbelieve in anything; my opinion changes with new information and how reliable I find it to be. Perhaps my perception of open-ended inquiry leaves the door open, which I find more enjoyable.

Great post.

I don't really understand who so many people feel the need to have some kind of label (and place such labels on others) as "sceptic" or "believer" or anything. I mean, some of thses events we discuss truly do seem compelling and inexplicable, and some seem totally mundane and explicable... and plenty in between. But, discounting the obvious hoaxes or misidentifications, nobody can say what's going on for sure, and that may always be the case.

It just seems to me like some people get so caught up in yelling about SCIENCE, without stopping to think that (for me certainly) theres more to life than trying to prove/disprive and categorize every human experience. I'm not anti-science, for from it, but it's one tool in the toolbox. To forget that is to forget how to be human.

A lot of guests who come on the Paracast are kicking around theories (not in the scientific sense), ideas, and anecdotes. As long as they're not claiming to be proving or disproving anything, then why criticise them for it, especially when so many of the guests are so interesting?