Do you have Hume’s Syndrome?

[Kilgore Trout]

What do we call the syndrome for people who irrationally accept the paranormal?

Mostly just...people.

 

[Sir Doom]

Seriously, 120 people say something... the assumption that because 120 people said something it must be true.

Its worse, really. 120 people can't explain something, it must be a miracle.

 

[freethinker44]

Mostly just...people.

Sadly, you are probably right.

 

[Quiddity]

Hume resisted superstition. I am indeed suffering from that same affliction.

It's a choice.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's a choice.

Doubtful. I couldn't choose to believe something irrational.

 

[Quiddity]

Doubtful. I couldn't choose to believe something irrational.

Others don't suffer from the ability of not being able to choose. Most folks can choose, and some can even have reasons for it that aren't deducible to evidence in the scientific sense.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Others don't suffer from the ability of not being able to choose.

Others suffer from much worse if they can willfully choose to believe something that has no rational basis.

 

[Orias]

The contradiction is resolved by Hume himself, who naively reveals what motivates him to deny the overwhelming testimony he reviews: namely, his fear of validating religion.

I've said something similar to this before. Though I would distinguish that fear of validating religion or more specifically the "paranormal" or spirits whatever you want to call it, is because its a matter of certainty and experience (as well as psychology and genetics). So when you balance all of that out, its a giant subjective tray of experience and observation to chose from. And when its trying to be applied to a rational and for the most part, objective process of observation and breaking down of things, it can be difficult to fill in the gaps. An example would be the laws of gravity, for us humans its an obvious and verifiable thing. Unlike in the simplest terms, experiencing the questionable. One may purpose that everything and experience is questionable, but when it comes to a matter of principal none can really be spoken of in terms of the nature of life.

And what it simply comes down to it, its just not knowing.

The lesson from history is not to be seduced by stereotypes: an empiricist can deny and distort facts; a religious believer can be critical and objective.

I concur with this, though they often act as reciprocals, in a fraudulent type of way.

 

[Quagmire]

Even if we were to agree for the sake of argument that all seemingly miraculous/supernatural/paranormal events were the result of some sort of trickery (including self-trickery), I still think Hume's syndrome could be considered a legitamate condition based soley on the reaction to the propasal of evidence, rather than the presentation of any actual or alledged evidence.

Just sounds like an inability or unwillingness to consider certain phenomena objectively.

 

[Orias]

Even if we were to agree for the sake of argument that all seemingly miraculous/supernatural/paranormal events were the result of some sort of trickery (including self-trickery), I still think Hume's syndrome could be considered a legitamate condition based soley on the reaction to the propasal of evidence, rather than the presentation of any actual or alledged evidence.

Just sounds like an inability or unwillingness to consider certain phenomena objectively.

Indeed, what you summarized is self deceit.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Even if we were to agree for the sake of argument that all seemingly miraculous/supernatural/paranormal events were the result of some sort of trickery (including self-trickery), I still think Hume's syndrome could be considered a legitamate condition based soley on the reaction to the propasal of evidence, rather than the presentation of any actual or alledged evidence.

Just sounds like an inability or unwillingness to consider certain phenomena objectively.

If one is unwilling to investigate and explore something honestly and objectively, then it's irrelevant whether what's being explored is rational or irrational. In this case, I suppose it could be called "legitimate" (I don't know if it could be classified as a "condition"). However, there would be a multitude of names far more apt than "Hume's Syndrome" to describe such a behavior.

 

[Quiddity]

Others suffer from much worse if they can willfully choose to believe something that has no rational basis.

That is true. Wholly dependent on what that something is. Opening the flood gates doesn't allow for everything. Just sayin...

 

[Orias]

What people call it is a part of them. If its foolish to some people, then its simply apart of them.

To the person giving information it should be irrelevant.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I suspect you thought my comment was aimed at the methods of science when I aimed at no such thing. Empericism has merit without it interfering with classical metaphysics. I mean, how in the world are theistic physcists able to do anything at all while still believing in God?

Well first of all I thought we were talking about "Hume's Syndrome", i.e. Hume's standard of evidence for miracles as discussed in the OP, not the existence of God. You said "The problem with humism isn't that it doesn't allow miracles, but that it avoids them at all costs" and I responded to that.

But in regard to your question, it seems most physicists do not believe in God. I believe it was the French physicist Laplace who replied to Napoleon, when asked about God's role in his model of the solar system, that "I had no need of that hypothesis".

 

[Willamena]

It's a choice.

What is?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suspect you thought my comment was aimed at the methods of science when I aimed at no such thing. Empericism has merit without it interfering with classical metaphysics. I mean, how in the world are theistic physcists able to do anything at all while still believing in God?

Judging by the number of people I see on their cell phones while driving, I would say that assuming that people are consistently rational is a bad idea.

 

[Desert Snake]

Eh, I'm not really impressed with this sort of quasi-analysis

 

[NIX]

One of the main criteria is, is it repeatable, but not only repeatable, will consistent results be yeilded? Miracles tend to fall short of reliably producing consistent results.

But aren't 'miracles' exactly not this?^ Or to say another way, these things describe and measure exactly what 'miracles'/or 'miraculous'/'irregular'/'unexplainable/(or 'non-consistent') experiences are not.

Is it fair to say that the miracles fall short of the method? Or is it more a matter that the method is incongrous- makes no room for- has nothing to do with -falls short of it's (this proposed) subject matter ('miracles').

 

[George-ananda]

Whether ‘Hume’s Syndrome’ is the right name for it or not I think the author is on to something.

I, being a so-called ‘paranormal’ believer, experience a intolerance to my beliefs that goes beyond rational reasoning into emotional overreaction. Why the vehement overreaction by people that I believe don’t know with a certainty the ultimate truths?

Our OP writer left this thread because of the emotional overreaction of certain individuals. I hope he/she comes back. But just look at the number of posts the thread got so quickly.

The paranormal seems to threaten the world-view of so many. The threat is met with vehemence beyond what seems rational. Why?

 

[Falvlun]

Whether ‘Hume’s Syndrome’ is the right name for it or not I think the author is on to something.

I, being a so-called ‘paranormal’ believer, experience a intolerance to my beliefs that goes beyond rational reasoning into emotional overreaction. Why the vehement overreaction by people that I believe don’t know with a certainty the ultimate truths?

Our OP writer left this thread because of the emotional overreaction of certain individuals. I hope he/she comes back. But just look at the number of posts the thread got so quickly.

The paranormal seems to threaten the world-view of so many. The threat is met with vehemence beyond what seems rational. Why?

I suspect it's not so much the paranormal that got everyone's fur up, but the insinuation that people who pride themselves on their objective rationality are acting in exactly the same manner as that which they tend to deride.