Banner
Views: 863,653,217
Time:
16 users online: Abdu, chickaDEE Magazine, Dakras Hayashi, Diego, edgar, Jazzman287, Kaizo Zhang, LOLRyan2006 the Goombud, MaxwelHacks, musicalman, NeptuneNeon, olgdeldnem, Ondore's Lies, pipouwu69, TheOtherGuy25, Truxton - Guests: 47 - Bots: 66 Users: 47,804 (2,077 active)
Latest: p7marinho
Tip: ALWAYS test anything that you've made before submitting it to SMW Central.Not logged in.
ESP: Psychics and Mediums
Forum Index - Donut Plains - General Discussion - ESP: Psychics and Mediums
Pages: « 1 2 3 » Thread Closed
Originally posted by aj6666
You know, I actually was expecting something like that given how you tend to react. At this point it's pretty much clear discussing with you is a waste of time since you're not even capable of taking things seriously; I'll remember that for the future. Whatever, have fun being a squarehead.

Not sarcasm, it was much closer to sardonicism, though even that is not quite right. I also don't think my strict adherence to logical consistency makes me stupid. You claimed that you don't dismiss something because it hasn't been disproved, while accepting that nothing could be disproved. I, in turn, put forward a hypothesis that I assumed you would dismiss outright, despite the fact that, as you have admitted, it cannot be disproved, and thereby, following your logic, should not be dismissed. If you dismiss that hypothesis, your logic is inconsistent, and therefore wrong. The hope being that you would see that your presented logic is flawed and find new logic to defend your position, or possibly amend your original logic to allow it to be consistent, or even just say that you don't dismiss the idea of little purple men causing the effects of gravity. Or find a flaw in my logic, that would be great, just something. Instead you responded with an ad hominem by calling me stupid and "not even capable of taking things seriously". Please engage in a real conversation, I wouldn't be here if I weren't interested in your point of view and logical defenses.

Originally posted by Pikerchu13
He could have presented it better

If you would tell me how it could have been better presented, I can better myself.

Originally posted by Kaijyuu
So yeah, you can believe whatever you want to make up. That's fine. You also have my permission to punch anyone in the face who claims knowledge about unknowable things (rather than just belief). But ultimately it's a waste of time when you could be worrying about things that are of some actual consequence.

The problem with psychic abilities is that they doesn't fit into that category. If it doesn't exist, people are spending their life savings on either delusional people or flat out liars. While I don't believe in forcing them to stop, I do believe in educating people to stop them from spending all of their money. If it does exist then I'm wrong and it's ok for people to spend all of their money on it, but all the evidence I've seen points towards the idea that the people practicing it are, with or without their knowledge, working on cues given by the "client", rather than being psychic, and I'd be remiss (though not immoral) if I didn't put forward my best argument to stop you from wasting your money. How much would I have to hate you to allow you to keep wasting your money on something I considered to be a scam without so much as a peep from me?
@Kaijyuu: I think what Hu is saying is that
Originally posted by Kaijyuu
Any conclusion you make will not change your behavior.
is wrong. And thus most of you argument is "wrong"
@Hu
I agree with you for the most part, but I think there should be some element of "buyer beware" as well. You can argue it's unethical to push stuff without scientific proof (herbal remedies, anyone?), but so long as the client knows and understands that, then it's their own fault if they get scammed.


@Sind
For truly unknowable things, my argument is sound. For ESP/etc, it isn't, but that stuff can be scientifically proven and thus not in the category of "unknowable."
Originally posted by Kaijyuu
I agree with you for the most part, but I think there should be some element of "buyer beware" as well. You can argue it's unethical to push stuff without scientific proof (herbal remedies, anyone?), but so long as the client knows and understands that, then it's their own fault if they get scammed.

We are in perfect accordance on that issue, I stress education and not force. This is an issue that is really important to me, because my mother uses a nature path (who also practices reflexology, something I laughed at as soon as I heard about it's existence, without knowing it was something my pediatrician practiced) as her normal doctor, and I can't convince her that it's crap, and it's very frustrating to me. Just a little insight as to why I care so much about people getting ripped off.
Oh yes, Alternativism, how fun.

Here's a secret: There's a reason these treatments are "alternate", and no the norm; if they worked, they'd long be the norm by now.
Originally posted by HuFlungDu
If you would tell me how it could have been better presented, I can better myself.


Perhaps by linking to this well-known satirical example.

e: Also, Hu, here's a tip. Don't get frustrated when people do get ripped off. There's little you can do about it anyway. You can't convince them, so just leave them in their own illusions. As long as it doesn't entirely break down their lives, anyway.

--------------------
--------> Don't follow "Find Roy's Dignity", my hack. Because it's pretty outdated. <--------
Originally posted by Roy
Originally posted by HuFlungDu
If you would tell me how it could have been better presented, I can better myself.


Perhaps by linking to this well-known satirical example.

Oh yes, much better than the miniature purple gravity people.
(okay, I'm not even sure myself if I'm being sarcastic or not in the above line)

Personally, I think I'd first warm them up with Ressel's teapot, and then gone for the good old Spaghetti Monster ^-^


Edit:
Originally posted by Roy
You can't convince them, so just leave them in their own illusions

There's no loss in trying(okay, so you may lose a little bit of sanity... and hope in human kind)
There certainly is a loss of energy you could've used on more productive things. =P

--------------------
--------> Don't follow "Find Roy's Dignity", my hack. Because it's pretty outdated. <--------
Originally posted by Sind
Personally, I think I'd first warm them up with Ressel's teapot, and then gone for the good old Spaghetti Monster ^-^

I really don't like the teapot since it's very often misapplied. It's a failure of an analogy for anything unfalsifiable (as the teapot is falsifiable), though it's fine for anything that's just extremely unlikely (like say, string theory). The Invisible Pink Unicorn is great for things rife with logical contradictions (like most religions), so I prefer that.

And if that doesn't work, I've got Stampy, my invisible intangible elephant that I mentioned earlier. Isn't he cute? Or would be, if he existed; I can never tell.
Let me put it this way Hu, I could dismiss your purple men theory because it's clearly an exaggeration you just pulled out of your head just to attack my logic, but instead I'll say there is actually a possibility for that to be truth (which is technically right despite everything). Now, exaggerations are not an appropriate way to discuss, because they are pretty much made-up and don't apply to reality; you could have easily explained your point otherwise without trying to ridiculize what I just said, so before telling me to engage in a real conversion, please do so yourself. Also just so you know, my little brother usually gets mad comes out with exaggerations like that one when he runs out of arguments which usually tend to backfire giving everyone a bunch of laughs and facepalms.

That being said, no logic is made to be applied to 100% of the cases (especially not made-up exaggerations), not everything in life follows a set-in-stone mathematical logic where anything that doesn't match perfectly is wrong; Newton's physics is a good example of this. When I called you a "squarehead", I wasn't calling you "stupid "(please don't change my words), but rather simplistic and over-rationalistic.

I don't know if this is the case, but it seems you're trying to convince me to say "no" ("At some point you just have to say "no""); which is kind of funny since I stated I wasn't saying these things existed and I said I wasn't interested enough in paranormal stuff to get more into it. If you say it's very likely for these all these things to be fake, then I'll agree with you, but I'm not going to give a straight "no", because I think saying "no" is like closing a door to many possibilities. One of the main principles of science is that every knowledge is uncertain, and I think that's true; anything which is right today, could be wrong tomorrow, this has happened a lot of times in history, and it will continue happening. And before you say it, no I don't go with that logic 100% of the time, I only apply it when I think in appropriate occasions, such as this one.

And just for the sake of not monopolizing this discussion, I'm going to say Roy is right, there's no point on trying to convince believers they are wrong, it's not going to work, and everyone is free to believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else; we need to learn to be tolerant sometimes.
I'll just point out that "taking things to their extreme" is often the best way to point out flaws in logic. It's the very basis for satire. The idea is magnifying the inconsistencies until they're extremely obvious.


Whilst I agree with you aj about keeping an open mind to things that are unlikely but not impossible, there exists enough inductive evidence to discredit ESP and the like to a significant degree. You could argue that the studies done so far are a fluke and/or missing something important, but the chances of that are vanishingly unlikely. Impossible no, but unlikely.


Since science is all about inductive reasoning, there's always a chance for things to be a fluke, but that alone isn't good enough reason to disbelieve anything. Maybe enough to continue to form hypotheses about how things can be wrong, but not good enough to disbelieve until new evidence is discovered.
Originally posted by aj6666
Let me put it this way Hu, I could dismiss your purple men theory because it's clearly an exaggeration you just pulled out of your head just to attack my logic, but instead I'll say there is actually a possibility for that to be truth (which is technically right despite everything). Now, exaggerations are not an appropriate way to discuss, because they are pretty much made-up and don't apply to reality; you could have easily explained your point otherwise without trying to ridiculize what I just said, so before telling me to engage in a real conversion, please do so yourself.

It's only ridiculous because it's a new idea. Yet there are countless mythologies, superstitions and so on that are even more ridiculous and don't even bother explaining themselves.

Originally posted by aj6666
That being said, no logic is made to be applied to 100% of the cases (especially not made-up exaggerations), not everything in life follows a set-in-stone mathematical logic where anything that doesn't match perfectly is wrong; Newton's physics is a good example of this. When I called you a "squarehead", I wasn't calling you "stupid "(please don't change my words), but rather simplistic and over-rationalistic.

I understand what you're getting at, but it's a little misguided. The fact that Science is not right 100% of the time is not an excuse to believe in the possibility for what anyone is proclaiming. For a positive claim REQUIRES evidence in order to have any factual worth whatsoever. His made-up story is a possibility, however, because he provides no factual evidence to back it up, and to defend himself he claims that it's impossible to provide evidence, then we have full right to dismiss the claim as nonsense.

Originally posted by aj6666
I don't know if this is the case, but it seems you're trying to convince me to say "no" ("At some point you just have to say "no""); which is kind of funny since I stated I wasn't saying these things existed and I said I wasn't interested enough in paranormal stuff to get more into it. If you say it's very likely for these all these things to be fake, then I'll agree with you, but I'm not going to give a straight "no", because I think saying "no" is like closing a door to many possibilities.

Possibilities mean jack if you can't prove them with natural evidence in experiments that can be redone to gain the same results each time.

Originally posted by aj6666
One of the main principles of science is that every knowledge is uncertain, and I think that's true; anything which is right today, could be wrong tomorrow, this has happened a lot of times in history, and it will continue happening. And before you say it, no I don't go with that logic 100% of the time, I only apply it when I think in appropriate occasions, such as this one.

Alright, this is wrong on a couple levels, so let me start.

1. The principle of Science that all knowledge has a degree of of uncertainty doesn't mean you can go around making up whatever stories you like to explain currently unexplained phenomenon. It's a motivation for Scientists to look into what we currently know and update our understanding of the universe. For example, look at the atom, and how our interpretation of it has changed over the years as we garnered new evidence from natural phenomenon.

2. Another principle of Science is that ALL HYPOTHESES MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Which, in short, means that even if you observe natural phenomenon and have some form of evidence to support your claim, it means nothing if your claim is impossible to be proven wrong. So you can't say Hu's story is Science, because the little purple guys are apparently so fast and so good at hiding, that they can never be seen. This means that only positive evidence can ever be shown to prove their existence, (His "Mary Poppins being something to make us more upset that we can't fly") and negative evidence is impossible because they can't be observed. Atoms can be observed and studied, so we can't see them. However, Atomic theory can be falsified because there is no claim that Atoms are impossible to observe, and that, backed with evidence as to their existence allows us to assume Atoms are real, but we accept the possibility that we may be wrong about them, even if atomic theory drives just about everything today.

Originally posted by aj6666
And just for the sake of not monopolizing this discussion, I'm going to say Roy is right, there's no point on trying to convince believers they are wrong, it's not going to work, and everyone is free to believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else; we need to learn to be tolerant sometimes.

Actually, you'd be surprised. A lot of Atheists are actually believers who were convinced that they were wrong, so you shouldn't say it's impossible to prove to someone that they're wrong. Second, there is a point in convincing believers, and it's a serious issue. That is, that if believers in nonsense have children, they will teach those children that their nonsense is the only way, and that will continue for generations, acting as a speedbump in the way of our quest for knowledge. And history has shown that when people have conflicting views, and both of their views involve spreading the good word, bad things happen to both sides.
Two fun things to point out, since we Went There:

1) Science is based upon an unfalsifiable assumption: Empiricism. Ever seen the Matrix? Or read anything from Descartes (the "I think therefore I am" guy)? All arguments against solipsism boil down to appealing to consequences rather than evidence ("that would be silly") or something with equally bogus assumptions (like religion, which is the route Descartes took).

2) Unfalsifiable things are inherently unknowable, so any conclusion is equally bogus, be it true or false. You're stuck with belief, not knowledge. On top of that, due to them being unknowable, they also don't actually affect anything, thus making them inconsequential.
Originally posted by aj6666
Let me put it this way Hu, I could dismiss your purple men theory because it's clearly an exaggeration you just pulled out of your head just to attack my logic

Not logically you couldn't. That's an argument by dismissal, a clear logical fallacy

Originally posted by aj6666
but instead I'll say there is actually a possibility for that to be truth (which is technically right despite everything).

That's fine. I never assumed I would convince you, but that helps others see more clearly.

Originally posted by aj6666
I don't know if this is the case, but it seems you're trying to convince me to say "no" ("At some point you just have to say "no"");

I want you to conform to logic. If you conform to logic (you now have as far as I can tell, since you accepted the absurd reduction) then I have no arguments against you, it's for us and for others to consider the implications of our logic.

Originally posted by aj6666
Now, exaggerations are not an appropriate way to discuss, because they are pretty much made-up and don't apply to reality; you could have easily explained your point otherwise without trying to ridiculize what I just said, so before telling me to engage in a real conversion, please do so yourself.

Actually, it's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's a totally valid logical refutation. Of course, it's wrong in this case because you say you accept that the absurd reduction is true, but that really says more about you than me.

Originally posted by aj6666
my little brother usually gets mad comes out with exaggerations like that one when he runs out of arguments which usually tend to backfire giving everyone a bunch of laughs and facepalms

More ad hominem. Being like your younger brother does not discount my argument, nor does laughing at it or face palming.


Originally posted by aj6666
That being said, no logic is made to be applied to 100% of the cases (especially not made-up exaggerations)

Actually, yes, all logic must apply to all cases that fit the given criteria, otherwise it is wrong. You can argue that your criteria was said incorrectly, or that my situation does not fit your criteria, meaning I used a straw man, but you did neither, you just called me names.

Originally posted by aj6666
not everything in life follows a set-in-stone mathematical logic where anything that doesn't match perfectly is wrong; Newton's physics is a good example of this.

Newtonian physics is wrong, we've known this for quite some time. It's often "good enough", but it does not accurately describe the universe. And yes, everything in life does follow logic, or else what is there for you to call true? Logic has to be externally (though not necessarily internally) consistent, otherwise it is not valid reasoning. If it's not valid reasoning, it's wrong, there are no ifs ands or buts about it.

Originally posted by aj6666
When I called you a "squarehead", I wasn't calling you "stupid "(please don't change my words)

Apologies if I misinterpreted your statement, but I had never heard the word "squarehead" before and so looked it up, giving me this definition:

Originally posted by Dictionary.com
square·head/ˈskwe(ə)rˌhed/
Noun:
1. A stupid or inept person.
2. offensive. A person of German, Dutch, or Scandinavian, esp. Swedish, origin.


Assuming you don't think I'm Swedish, I'm sure you can see where the confusion came from.


Keep in mind, I'm not saying that ESP doesn't exist because your argument is fallacious, I'm merely saying that your argument is fallacious and you should really look into that. Of course you deny that it is fallacious and instead choose to accept the possible existence of small purple men who make gravity, so I'm wrong. Congratulations, you win, I have no more arguments against your statement.
@Pikerchu, you're missing my point, I'm not saying we can just go, make up a completely incoherent story out of your head and claim it to be true. I'm just saying that saying "no" out of the blue is not a good idea, when you deny something you close your eyes to a lot of things that could be useful to you.

And I know it's actually possible to convince people to become atheists, but most of the time it doesn't work and it's more trouble than it's worth anyways; besides the way you put it makes you sound like a religious fanatic who's trying to convince people to follow their beliefs.

@Hu, I understand what you're trying to tell me, but that "logic" you speak of is just something made up by humans. Logic works in the field of natural sciences such as mathematics, physics, biology, and even things like computer programming. However, the world goes beyond the field of natural science, in fact there are also social sciences (or human sciences) such as sociology, psychology and many more. I don't blame you for using a mathematical logic where everything has to fit in perfectly, but you must understand there are sciences that work differently, where a theory doesn't need to apply to every single case, otherwise we wouldn't be able to study these things.

There are pretty much two main types of philosophy right now, there are philosophers like Descartes or Kant who are behind the mathematical logic you're talking about and there are philosophers like Nietzsche, or Heidegger who are behind the logic of social sciences. One of my favorite philosophers, Jaques Derrida thinks there are no objective facts, but central speeches that dismiss anything that doesn't conform to them; just like you're asking me to conform to your logic and call my arguments "fallacious". I'm not dismissing your logic, nor I am asking you to conform to my way of thinking or to even understand it, I'm just asking you to understand your mathematical logic cannot be applied everywhere (and it shouldn't be applied to these kind of discussions, actually), just like you can't try to explain nature with the social sciences logic.

This is starting to get of topic. I don't want to derail this thread anymore so if you still want to discuss about this, send me a PM.
Originally posted by Everyone
Discussing whether or not something can be correct with lack of proof for and against


So I take it none of you know anyone relevant to the original question?

Ah... that's... a disappointment. I'd screw around with my psychic powers so much if I had them. Although, I think we all would. Of course, there always is cold reading, but I don't think I want to start scamming people who believe that the socially awkward kid from that one lunch table can read their futures. >.> Unless everything I say somehow starts magically happening, but I really, really doubt that would happen. (shrug) I'm not going to try that.
Originally posted by Boometh
So I take it none of you know anyone relevant to the original question?

You asked if anyone knew someone with psychic powers, but psychic powers don't exist in any demonstrable way, so there does not exist anyone relevant to the original question. So I guess the answer to your question is no?
Wow, I somehow expected that one goes and posts about psychic abilities. Just a good note from me:
For those, who still want to live in their dreamed world, then do so and don't read this:
The point is the most people don't have a great time in their life, so they begin escapism(Read the wiki, if you don't know what it means). Indeed, they really believe that they can move a Psi-Wheel, which is actually just thermodynamics and physically explainable. If they could REALLY do these psychic abilities, then the military would have used it as benefit already.

I'm also wondering, when Suns challenged SMLink64 to tell the tomerrow's Lottery numbers, SMLink64 hasn't replied yet, which absolutley proves that stuff like psychic abilities doesn't exists. Also, before some "psychic" is going to tell me something about "belief" here following:
Belief means to not know about things, but actually "hoping" to be true. Got it? So, I've never saw someone who was able to let objects move without touching it with hands. Well, I was surprised when one showed it to me, but later I found out, that he used strings to move that thing.

It's just really said to see how these people are deceiving oneself.

Also, you can trust me, that I'm like James Randi. I would really spend all my money, if I would see ONE that could do these abilities without tricks etc. All what I see are "words". Yes, the psychic are just telling words. Words don't prove psychic abilities. Videos don't also, because you can easily fake them or use tricks to let it move.

BTW:
I can fly, go through walls and can destroy the world, when I snap my fingers.

--------------------
Tarek701 is dead.
Originally posted by Tarek701
when Suns challenged SMLink64 to tell the tomerrow's Lottery numbers, SMLink64 hasn't replied yet, which absolutley proves that stuff like psychic abilities doesn't exists.

no it doesn't. You can never prove that that something doesn't exist(well, unless you have perfectly analyzed the entire universe I guess)

You just have to go with what we know, and Occam's razor for the rest(also attempt to find out more :V)
Originally posted by Sind
Originally posted by Tarek701
when Suns challenged SMLink64 to tell the tomerrow's Lottery numbers, SMLink64 hasn't replied yet, which absolutley proves that stuff like psychic abilities doesn't exists.

no it doesn't. You can never prove that that something doesn't exist(well, unless you have perfectly analyzed the entire universe I guess)

You just have to go with what we know, and Occam's razor for the rest(also attempt to find out more :V)


Still doesn't change the point, that psychic abilities haven't been proved. If someone here could really do it, then I want a proof. Belief or words aren't enough. Before I end my reply, I just want to tell you, that the science would've found the "psychic abilities" already. There are some institues that are doing experiments like telepathy stuff. Did anyone got an interessting result? No.

Also:
I admit this an talk forum, where you can talk about every stuff. But if you don't want to get flamed, then go in an esoteric forum or something similar.

--------------------
Tarek701 is dead.
Pages: « 1 2 3 » Thread Closed
Forum Index - Donut Plains - General Discussion - ESP: Psychics and Mediums

The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.

Copyright © 2005 - 2020 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Privacy Policy - Link To Us


Menu

Follow Us On

  • YouTube
  • Twitch
  • Twitter

Affiliates

  • Super Mario Bros. X Community
  • ROMhacking.net
  • Mario Fan Games Galaxy