Comments on: What CSI(COP) Is About

By: The_Sage

The_Sage — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:45:18 +0000

I don’t have to see something to know it exists. I haven’t personally seen the top of Mount Everest for myself, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I suspect that you too haven’t personally seen the top of Mount Everest for yourself, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist either. Nobody has ever seen a black hole, dark matter, or cosmic strings, but does that mean none of those things exist? No, of course not. So if we both haven’t personally seen ET for ourselves, does that mean ET doesn’t exist? No, of course not. So the person that calls themself a skeptic and says they don’t believe in something because they haven’t seen it for themselves, isn’t really being a skeptic but are resorting to a logical fallacy. You cannot scientifically or logically justify a belief in something just because you have or have not seen it for yourself. On the other hand, just because you have seen something doesn’t mean it exists either — that is what delusions, illusions, and hallucinations are all about. The point is, what you or I see or do not see is not a fact, but testimony, and testimony should never be confused with an actual fact. Testimony that cannot be backed up with facts is nothing more than storytelling.

Let’s take this to the next level. So how do we know if Mount Everest exists or not, if we have not personally seen it for ourselves? Let me rephrase that…how do we know if Mount Everest exists or not, if we have not directly verified it for ourselves? I will tell you how, because there are two kinds of evidence — direct and indirect. We can know these things exist via indirect evidence. That’s because real life things interact with other real life things. So what if you wanted to see a UFO or ET for yourself? That’s a problem because no one can do that. There is no evidence, either direct or indirect. It is all based purely on faith, not fact. The logically proper thing to do when presented with a claim in a vacuum of evidence, is to disbelieve, but that would not make one a skeptic (one who disbelieves everything they have not seen for themselves), but rather a person who is skeptical of claims given in a vacuum of evidence.

Psychologically speaking, people take truth to mean ‘any idea that someone believes’. They believe that just believing in an idea makes it true, but “truths” in this sense often have little or nothing to do with facts. Facts are parts of the real world, independent of what people think or believe, independent of whether or not people know they exist, independent of whether they are accepted or not, believed or not, or even liked or not. The vast majority of the UFO community believe in the idea of storytales of UFOs, and skeptics believe in the idea of storytales of doubting everything they haven’t seen for themselves. Neither stance is truthful, factual, convincing, scientific, or logical.

By: The_Sage

The_Sage — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:49:23 +0000

“I can take the laughs”

You haven’t done any scientific research, so how would you know?

“Usually the people who laugh first are the ones who are trying to hide their own insecurity”

That is a nonsense philosophy, not a fact. Besides, I was speaking metaphorically, not literally.

By: tyder001

tyder001 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:44:46 +0000

I think Doctor Kaku can stand his own agaisnt an amauter magican. That being said maybe I didn’t make myself clear. I am a skeptic. But by skeptic I don’t mean code word for atheist. I mean an actual person who has to see it myself to beleive it. For instance (I won’t go into it here)I have had my own experiences (which I don’t try to shove down others throats)that make me consider the so called paranormal on some level. On the other hand I have never seen an alien. So I am exremely skeptical of their existence. I don’t think everyone who has had the expereince is lying. But I would have to acutally see something like that to truly beleive in it. My disapointment with the good professer last week had to do with his simple card tricks and his statements which were not “I’ve looked at the research and don’t beleive it.)But rather his sweeping “The research doesn’t exist” statements. I really don’t care if you think we go into oblivion or into Nirvana or heaven or hell. The fact is (and I know it’s a tuff one for both the fundi and the athiest)we don’t know what happens to consciness (scuse muy spellin)at death. I hope and I have my reasons to beleive that we are more than the chemicals in our bodies. But I freely admit I don’t know. Yet!

By: red pill junkie

red pill junkie — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:31:53 +0000

I can take the laughs. Usually the people who laugh first are the ones who are trying to hide their own insecurity

PS: FINALLY UFO Mystic’s back!!! This is becoming disturbingly frequent, guys.

By: The_Sage

The_Sage — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:21:47 +0000

“I think some of the research of Doctor Kaku would blow this guy away”

Dr Kaku doesn’t have any research. He is an author who likes to SPECULATES on what might be, not what is.

“But the same old ‘it can’t happen so it can’t be true.’ mess of the so called skeptics is getting old”

The pursuit of truth never gets old and the truth is, it isn’t true because it never happens.

By: The_Sage

The_Sage — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:18:55 +0000

“But what about applying statistics to the rate of falling apples in a whole orchard?”

You would be laughed out of the scientific community for applying a technique where it doesn’t apply. The only time you would use statistics for falling apples is for determining error range — not the speed of the falling apples.

By: red pill junkie

red pill junkie — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:50:05 +0000

“Statistics is just a way to MODEL phenomenon that is chaotic, random, or unpredictable. The height of ocean waves is chaotic, a falling apple is not.”

OK. But what about applying statistics to the rate of falling apples in a whole orchard?

By: tyder001

tyder001 — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:45:00 +0000

Scuse the typos and spelling above. It’s just that everyone sets up staw men and knocks em down. When in reality the research of people like Ian Stevenson and J.B. Rhine and Rupert Sheldrake while not entirely convincing does make it hard to buy the old “there is no research 0r evidence at all routine. Also, the links Greg shared in the last week or so to the papers (sorry Greg it’s getting late and I’m to lazy to find the exact post tonight)written by serious researchers may not prove PSI but it does prove their are valid folks out there looking into it. And they do it without silly card tricks and smirks on their faces.

By: tyder001

tyder001 — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:40:39 +0000

Today I went to see a demonstration from a University of Alabama professor who said he is in the “vein” of James Randi. He did some card tricks and some spoon bending and then pronouned it all a hoax. Of course it was and everyone knew it. He then said since there have been NO studies remotely showing esp and he could do magic “tricks” that ESP just didn’t exist. Now I understand I’ve simplified it here but lets just say I was severly disapointed. He used all the randi arguments. The old “If ya can’t speak French ya can’t have Telekinesis between and American and a french speaking person. The old argument that since the “future” hasn’t happened you can’t predict it so it can’t be true. I think some of the research of Doctor Kaku would blow this guy away. Anyway, I’m not saying I can prove E.S.P. because quite frankly I can’t. But the same old “it can’t happen so it can’t be true.” mess of the so called skeptics is getting old.

By: The_Sage

The_Sage — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:23:53 +0000

“So what does determine the statistical nature of a given phenomenon—or, better yet, the applicability of statistical science to the nature of a given phenomenon?”

Statistics is just a way to MODEL phenomenon that is chaotic, random, or unpredictable. The height of ocean waves is chaotic, a falling apple is not.