Perhaps your concerns have finally been answered, MR. In that dodgy, tentative, round-a-bout SF manner it sounds like the UG&M forum is only for the debunking of its invited subject matter. From that standpoint it's like a Dionaea muscipula, in that this restrictive purpose and the dire consequences for failing to conform to it wouldn't seem immediately apparent to even those who Marcello Truzzi tagged as hard-boiled pseudoskeptics, casually passing by. [Again, there's no hint in its sticky topic that the big "Welcome" excludes proponents of Martians and bogeys gloating shamelessly about their quirky passions]. Little wonder any fence-straddling "suspended belief" comments still garnered you a person of interest blip on the SF ban-dar. Paranormal "agnostic" and "effulgent gullible believer" probably just blur together on the device's myopic screen.
I guess that IS the answer. Doesn't really say a whole helluva lot for the objectivity of this self-appointed pep squad for all things scientific. Seems to me they oughta change the "They are amongst us" part of the subforum title, as that in itself is a claim without evidence. lol! From your referenced link: "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof... Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them." — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5] This goes to the standard "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof" claim. If one is truly agnostic regarding the paranormal, and therefore truly objective about examining evidence for it, then the prospect of it existing shouldn't be extraordinary at all. It should be just as probablistically neutral as any other amazing phenomena, from quantum entanglement to dark energy. Only for one who presumes the paranormal to be highly improbable already would its existence be extraordinary. It's all a matter of what beliefs you have, ideally in this case keeping the number of those regarding this subject down to the barest minimum.
Fiction for is name sake allows for great levels of embellishment. The real Lord Kelvin would have likely been very use to ascertaining and providing proof from years of academia.
this reads: "So this apple is a fruit, just as this orange is the fruit, both the two are the same?". It would be better to disclaim that the video is not "Smoking gun evidence" to support or deny your (or the video creators) claim. It's just a video placed purely for infamy or renown. The point in case as to why you were likely banned previously is very much down to your methods of argument, it's completely disingenuous. That's either because you are allowing your egocentric need to come out on top to blind you from the fact that your argument is moot or you truly are a poor disillusioned soul.
Why would I claim the video is a hoax placed purely for infamy or reknown when I have no evidence for that? Can't people here judge for themselves by looking at the video and reading the media-reported background of how it was taken? So posting photo evidence of paranormal entities is "completely disingenuous"? If I posted photo evidence of ball lightning would THAT be completely disingenuous too? I'll ignore the ad hom about me being a "poor disillusioned soul". Apparently only mods can get away with that tactic.
If you simply post it, without making a claim, that's fine. If you post it claiming it "proves the existence of *insert fairy tale creature here*", then you have to back it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Maybe you really believe that and maybe you know it isn't true, but now that you have been TOLD that it isn't true AND that the rules require accepting it, you have no more reason to continue claiming it. What your experiences here are telling you is that your thought process is wrong for intellectual discussion and unless you change it you will continue to have problems trying to have intellectual discussions. Moreover, your incredulity is incredible (as is that of your defenders). You claim not to know why you are being treated this way despite the FACT that it has clearly been explained to you a number of times. Whether that is on purpose or not is neither here nor there: either way you have proven yourself quite incapable of intellectual discussion: whether on purpose or by inability, you are clearly telling us you have no intention to ever start discussing these things intelligently.
Why is it so hard for so many people here to understand that all the rules require is upholding the standards of intellectual discussion? Frankly, such misrepresentations appear whiney and purposely obtuse.
Like I keep saying "post/don't post it matters not". If it's unsubstantiated parroted pop-culture as opposed to Science it will be met with critical reception. You do know why oranges don't grow on apple trees, right? (This is a far simpler statement than trying to point out that "ball lightning" is a meteorological phenomena which *is not* paranormal.) Hardly an Ad Hom, the meaning was in regards to you either being purposely obtuse or unfortunately you can fathom that you are being obtuse. You are obviously the only one that can enlighten me as to which is it, currently I am assuming the former. If you conclude that's a personal attack that isn't the actual case, otherwise I would of sank to all time lows and just gone with outright name calling. That isn't what I'm actually about even if you think it is.
What if I post it with the news article that describes it? That's what I usually do. Will I be banned for the media not proving it is unfaked?
I don't mind critical reception. I will most happily entertain any maturely offered skepticism that is based on sound reasoning or evidence. What scares me is being labeled a troll again by some pissed off moderator who isn't even involved in the debate and then infracted for that charge with no warning whatsoever. Now I'm either obtuse or pretending to be obtuse? Why the insults? FYI I have no interest to pandering to your need to peg me somehow as being a certain way. It certainly has nothing to do with the thread at hand, and frankly I have little confidence that a moderator won't go off on me at any moment and ban me for pissing them off. So in the interest of my own future posting here my discussion with you is hereby ended. Kitt seems to actually be giving me an answer to my question anyway.
Another example of the flaming and character assaults typically lobbed at me by those having no counterargument to make. Or else having only the most absurd of arguments: iow, unless you goosestep with the rest of us here, you will be banned. That's not an argument. It's more like a threat. Talk about whining..
Again, if you are the one taking a stance, then the burden of proof is on you. Now, "proof" has its limits - a reasonable expectation of proof, ergo proving beyond a reasonable doubt. The idea that something could be photoshopped is reasonable - it happens all the time; as an example
So will I be banned for posting a video of chair moving by itself in a haunted theater along with the news article describing it? What else is required to prove a chair moved by itself beyond actual CCTV footage of it doing so?
Honestly? A third party investigation - there are so many easy ways a "chair moving by itself" could be faked that without an investigation by a neutral third party, I wouldn't believe it... I would scarcely believe it if I were there myself to bear witness to it - again, there's just too many ways to falsify something like that. As for you being banned; no, posting that on its own would not warrant a ban, nor would it be against the rules. What would be against the rules is trying to claim that on its own is concrete evidence that tiny invisible unicorns that levitate furniture to toy with us exist (note, the example is made up and intended to be ridiculous)
I have your word then. Good. Because I think it's interesting and real and raises real possibilities for the reality of the paranormal. I'm certainly not going to speculate on possible methods of fakery when I don't believe there to be any.
Huzzah!!! See now you've got to brass tacks. If you'd just said this to begin with, it would of been far simpler. Why do you assume it was an insult. Quite simply you were commenting and skipping around the actual problem. What you've done is the great service of actually identifying in a non-obtuse manner your actual concerns. I actually commend you (you might not think much of that since you probably just think of me as being a "bully boy".) All I was after from you was the straight forwards truth as to your overall concerns/post and you've finally come through, it has little to do with the post contents on the methods applied but the actual concern that you feel singled out by a moderator and what reaction and consequence that has. Let me be clear, I don't have any intention of baiting you to be banned. Like I mentioned previously you were likely banned for too long in regards to whatever reason was initially stated, unfortunately I didn't look into it at the time since I'd already overwritten someone else's ban that created some internal controversy which stonewalled any further actions. In any event continue to post what you will, if you find someone puts an infraction against you in the future, PM me and we'll see what we can do about salvaging your post/thread and removing the infraction that's as fair as I can be. Incidentally I apologise if you were offended, I had to button push a little to see what your actual intentions were.
I'm not seeing confirmation bias in taking a CCTV video of a chair moving on its own to be exactly that. No beliefs are required. It is what it is. And the theater owner testifies that the theater has a long history of unexplained occurrances like this. What WOULD be confirmation bias would be trying to dismiss this as faked, even when there are no signs of fakery, in line with your belief that there is no such thing as the paranormal. You are essentially only confirming your belief that ghosts don't exist instead of objectively taking the evidence as is.
Thanks. I feel more confident now posting with your support. It's not like I don't filter out fakery of paranormal anyway. Tons of photos and videos out there of obvious flash anomalies, breath vapor, and downright CGI/photoshop. So I'm careful not to post crap like that here anyway. This IS a respectable science site afterall..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
