A message from Mom

[Magical Realist]

If compelling, even in one instance, there would be a scientific paper out every week trying to solve exactly what the paranormal is and how it operates

Right..just like there's a scientific paper out every week trying to solve what love is, or consciousness, or the meaning of life. I'm not holding my breath. I'll just stick with the many compelling accounts I've posted here over the past 7 years and the many more I'm sure that are yet to come my way. One good thing about the paranormal being real...you can never really tire of there being too much evidence for it.

 

[Michael 345]

Right..just like there's a scientific paper out every week trying to solve what love

Try these for love
http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Love

or consciousness

These for consciousness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641373/

Extract

As papers about consciousness are so often introduced, consciousness was until few decades ago considered a philosophical problem only, and the current interest in empirical consciousness research was unforeseen. This development was of course influenced by the technological advancements in neuroscience during those decades, but more important and fundamental was a new openness to interdisciplinary integration of research questions, methods and arguments. Cognitive scientists and neuroscientists agreed that the philosophical problems of why and how there is consciousness are also their problems.

compelling

For paranormal research I found this

https://jeksite.org/psi.htm

too much evidence for it.

Of which you have produced none

 

[sideshowbob]

I just cited compelling evidence for the paranormal.

You have demonstrated many times that you are easily compelled to accept what you already believe.

 

[Magical Realist]

You have demonstrated many times that you are easily compelled to accept what you already believe.

Nope. Compelling evidence is compelling evidence. Doesn't matter if you already believe in the paranormal or not.

 

[Magical Realist]

Try these for love
http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Love



These for consciousness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5641373/

Extract

As papers about consciousness are so often introduced, consciousness was until few decades ago considered a philosophical problem only, and the current interest in empirical consciousness research was unforeseen. This development was of course influenced by the technological advancements in neuroscience during those decades, but more important and fundamental was a new openness to interdisciplinary integration of research questions, methods and arguments. Cognitive scientists and neuroscientists agreed that the philosophical problems of why and how there is consciousness are also their problems.





For paranormal research I found this

https://jeksite.org/psi.htm



Of which you have produced none

LOL! I'm so glad scientists have begun to tackle the mysteries of love, consciousness, and the meaning of life. I await their peer reviewed conclusions with bated breath.

 

[sideshowbob]

Compelling evidence is compelling evidence.

Obviously not, since the rest of us are not compelled.

 

[Magical Realist]

Obviously not, since the rest of us are not compelled.

You speak for more than yourself? How do you know what others feel?

 

[sideshowbob]

You speak for more than yourself? How do you know what others feel?

Most people on this forum seem to agree. The Nobel Committee doesn't give out prizes for paranormal nonsense. So yes, I think the consensus among educated people is that there is no "compelling' evidence for paranormal nonsense.

 

[Magical Realist]

Most people on this forum seem to agree. The Nobel Committee doesn't give out prizes for paranormal nonsense. So yes, I think the consensus among educated people is that there is no "compelling' evidence for paranormal nonsense.

Sounds like an argument ad populum. Believe what the majority believes. Nice philosophy for a sheep.

 

[sideshowbob]

Sounds like an argument ad populum. Believe what the majority believes. Nice philosophy for a sheep.

You claimed that the evidence was compelling. If the majority is not compelled, it isn't compelling.

 

[Magical Realist]

You claimed that the evidence was compelling. If the majority is not compelled, it isn't compelling.

How do you know a majority of readers don't find these accounts compelling? You don't know. You're just making shit up.

 

[sideshowbob]

How do you know a majority of readers don't find these accounts compelling?

How can YOU call the evidence "compelling" unless YOU know what other people think?

 

[Magical Realist]

How can YOU call the evidence "compelling" unless YOU know what other people think?

Because it's compelling to me. I don't need to take a poll to find out if something is compelling.

 

[Michael 345]

LOL! I'm so glad scientists have begun to tackle the mysteries of love, consciousness, and the meaning of life. I await their peer reviewed conclusions with bated breath.

You failed to note I left out the meaning of life

Such style of question is not suitable for science

My opinion holds that there is no such animal

Life has no meaning. It is what it is FULL STOP

May as well ask what is the meaning of rock

I await their peer reviewed conclusions with bated breath.

No need to bate your breath i am sure you would find resolutions to study even some disagreements

But hay that's science for you. Publish and review and slowly build up agreement

 

[sideshowbob]

Because it's compelling to me.

If it only applies to YOU, it's just an opinion. You can claim that there is "compelling evidence" that vanilla is the "best" ice cream but it's only an opinion.

 

[Magical Realist]

If it only applies to YOU, it's just an opinion. You can claim that there is "compelling evidence" that vanilla is the "best" ice cream but it's only an opinion.

And it's only your opinion that it isn't compelling. So what?

 

[sideshowbob]

And it's only your opinion that it isn't compelling. So what?

No, evidence doesn't work that way. You don't get to have your own private evidence. If it isn't generally "evident", it isn't evidence. Evidence would be something that anybody could observe. The interpretation that the observations were "messages" from Spookville is not evidence.

 

[Magical Realist]

If it isn't generally "evident", it isn't evidence.

You have no idea if it isn't generally evident. You just have your sole biased opinion. And that's all you have.

 

[sideshowbob]

You have no idea if it isn't generally evident.

Wrong. If it was generally evident, there would be scientific investigations and scientific papers.

 

[Magical Realist]

Wrong. If it was generally evident, there would be scientific investigations and scientific papers.

No there wouldn't. Science doesn't concern itself with non-repeatable phenomena.