I'm all for skepticism and disbelief without proper evidence. However, there is a an area of science know as paranormal science. I don't believe in god, the afterlife, demons, etc. but that doesn't mean i don't belief in other things, as some people have claimed. I believe in Extraterrestrials, and do not dismiss the possibility of ghosts or psychics, even some cryptids i don't deny the possibility of existence. These things actually have evidence supporting them, and evidence against. Granted a majority is first person experience and word of mouth, both terrible sources, but there is consistency with claims and research. Am i wrong to believe or be on the fence on paranormal topics? Some people have said yes, as an atheist it is my job to deny anything that is beyond the physical world, but I'm not sure i agree with that. So am i wrong for not denying these things until concrete evidence is found? are there any others that hold belief in a supernatural thing?
Personally I consider paranormal science as pseudo-science. I presribe to Micheal Shermer's definition.
I've put this up a few times around here, but one more won't hurt:
One man's "magic" is another man's engineering. "Supernatural" is a null word.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
Yeah. It really speaks to my soul.
"We humans are patterns of information"
That sounds cool...Do you happen to know of any good reading to further explain this?
"There are legitimate scientists (Dr. Dean Radin and the Cognitive lab at Stanford) in the field that have performed rigorous experiments that have provided strong repeatable and documented evidence of non-local information and non-local influence capabilities."
Whoa there! repeated and documented by whom?
There isn't a lot of support in the scientific community that he's even "doing" science, not when they actually examine the "evidence" and consider the experiment protocols.
What if Dean Radkin is right? (Skeptic's Dictionary) …exposes the many flaws in not just the methodologies used, but in their interpretation.
Thank you Richard. Everytime someone shows me some study, my first reaction is to ask 'what was the methodology used, what was kicked out,excluded. How was the experiment set up'? Also what is the background of the people involved. How did they draw their interpretation of the results? Things like that. Get some crazy looks. Skepticism, it's a beautiful thing.
Question guys. Are we battling over semantics here? When someone says 'I believe in god[s], or a child says I believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny' does't make it so. However when someone asks why some grass is greener than others, I resond by saying I belive it is due to the ratio of green to blue chloraphyll, we have both used the term believe. We know the difference. So do you think this is a semantics game we are playing. Just curiois. Thanks.
No, not if you mean "quibbling semantics" when you say "semantics game".
"Believe in"; in this case, is an existential claim (not a commendatory "believe in" as in, "I believe in his ability to fix my car).
When you say: " I reasoned by saying I belive it is due to the ratio of green to blue chlorophyl", you're just using "believe it is" as an analog for "think it is". I tend to avoid this one when I actually mean, "think".
Semantics (all three branches apply here), yes …quibbling, no.
Thanks man. Appreciate the clarification. Always helps to ask you guys. Have a good one, my friend.