tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post2726675241475245903..comments2024-03-20T03:33:22.357-07:00Comments on Skeptophilia: Ghosthunters, reduxGordon Bonnethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-25539544069962446022012-06-02T15:29:17.749-07:002012-06-02T15:29:17.749-07:00This is pretty old but I thought I would point out...This is pretty old but I thought I would point out teh flaw in johns argument.<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />If, as traditional sources maintain, the energy fields associated with consciousness, ghosts, esp., etc. are of a frequency that is far higher than any so far detected on “the physical plane”.<br /><br />By your use of the word frequency you prove Gordons point: <br /><br />" Don’t talk about energies and fields and forces, and expect me not to think you’re applying those words in the way a physicist would."<br /><br />Clearly you are not using it the way a physicist would. What do you mean by higher frequency? Higher frequency of what? It is a term as misused as quantum.... A frequency isn't something on its own. Its a measured quantity. <br /><br />To give you an idea, I could argue that ghost's must exist because they've been known to display a higher frequency of scatting than humans and simians combined, there's been an unusual amount of scatting incidents as of late, so ghost must be doing it, therefor they exist. <br /><br />t.Quantum of Idiocyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13165565394098068373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-86966080931801777092011-09-15T02:03:08.310-07:002011-09-15T02:03:08.310-07:00Hi John,
Your final paragraph seems to me to be a...Hi John,<br /><br />Your final paragraph seems to me to be a fine distinction; I'm certainly in agreement with either statement. My general opinion on such things as ghosts and other sorts of paranormal claims is that "the jury's still out." Those things may be true or may be false -- there's no evidence either way. Put a different way, a lack of evidence is not the same thing as evidence AGAINST a claim. If, as you suggest, we simply lack the technology to detect such phenomena, I am perfectly willing to revise my opinion when such technology is developed & evidence is found.<br /><br />That said, I am wary about hoaxes, which are all too common in these fields, and also the less deliberate (but therefore more insidious) capacity for our senses to be fooled. I tend to assume there's a natural explanation until evidence proves otherwise. But I maintain that I am a skeptic in the literal sense of the word -- I am entirely willing to jettison my current belief/explanation in the face of evidence that shows me that I'm wrong.<br /><br />cheers,<br /><br />GordonGordon Bonnethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06003472005971594466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-9163465751363658042011-09-14T18:44:38.620-07:002011-09-14T18:44:38.620-07:00In your article you state: “If something is an ene...In your article you state: “If something is an energy or field or force, it should be measurable. If you want me to believe it, show me.”<br /><br />I would offer that the simple fact that we cannot measure, or even detect, an energy field does not mean that it does not exist. If in the 1800’s if you tried to explain to an Astronomer that stars generated far more kinds of energy than just visible light they would scoff at the suggestion. Today, more astronomy is probably done using Radio Telescopes than the optical variety. This would be a case of a failure to detect energy because it existed outside of the range of the state of the art technology of the time, not a failure to detect the energy because it does not exist.<br /><br />If, as traditional sources maintain, the energy fields associated with consciousness, ghosts, esp., etc. are of a frequency that is far higher than any so far detected on “the physical plane”, then lack of detection of these energy fields or forces does not mean that they are not there, but may just indicate that we have yet to develop the technology required to monitor them. <br /><br />The modern definition of a “Skeptic’s” approach is pretty well summed up in your statement, “If you want me to believe it, show me.” I take this to mean that even though you probably do believe that you are open to reviewing new evidence in an impartial manner, you have already decided not to believe any of it until someone convinces you otherwise. That’s not quite the same thing as saying “I will wait and form my opinions based on the evidence provided”, which would be a quite reasonable approach to this subject.<br /><br />John R. DeLorez smopblog.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-49529822931736091732011-09-13T06:58:05.825-07:002011-09-13T06:58:05.825-07:00I'm going to start calling you Scully. Oh, ex...I'm going to start calling you Scully. Oh, except that Scully was a devout Catholic.... back to the drawing board.....Nancyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08444647423337451493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4307187040250193857.post-62946926543361675752011-09-13T05:01:27.885-07:002011-09-13T05:01:27.885-07:00Nice way to lay it out there Gordon! Good show.
...Nice way to lay it out there Gordon! Good show. <br /><br />I love the idea that folks who are true believers in whatever they may believe need to show the burden of proof. Excellent!Alex Sollahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12222528761667893874noreply@blogger.com