Epistemology of Pseudoscience

[PoetPhilosopher]

Going back to the subject of the paranormal, I have had some experiences that can't be explained. They can't really all be summed up as mental illness either considering some of my family have at times also experienced some form of phenomena at about the same time. I don't have a "ghost problem", but I was wondering how easy it is to accept there is some kind of larger-than-life-supernatural, and about a subject many people don't take seriously, like ghosts, without losing all credibility according to people in the science etc communities.

And say I DO believe in ghosts. How can I react appropriately to things I can't really explain without automatically jumping to the conclusion it's the paranormal, if I do believe?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I find the best approach would be that of a skeptic.

I examined the fallibility of our mind and how it's so prone to play tricks on us, like the phenomena of mayko if you're into meditation for instance.

I love things that challenge and tricks the mind , such as optical illusions and perception. One could have a lot of fun going through YouTube on optical illusions and perception mind games. It explains a lot why people would be privy in thinking that they are having a paranormal experience in one form or another because of the way the brain functions.

My own assessment is if you look around you at reality itself, the way it is , to which can be so freaky and bizzare, you almost don't need the Paranormal to begin with.

 

[George-ananda]

Going back to the subject of the paranormal, I have had some experiences that can't be explained. They can't really all be summed up as mental illness either considering some of my family have at times also experienced some form of phenomena at about the same time. I don't have a "ghost problem", but I was wondering how easy it is to accept there is some kind of larger-than-life-supernatural, and about a subject many people don't take seriously, like ghosts, without losing all credibility according to people in the science etc communities.

And say I DO believe in ghosts. How can I react appropriately to things I can't really explain without automatically jumping to the conclusion it's the paranormal, if I do believe?

I think the idea of believing in paranormal and psychic things is becoming more mainstream and is not at all in conflict with being a scientific person. Science is just incomplete is all paranormal belief is saying.

I am a strong believer in paranormal and spiritual things myself and totally pro-science. The old stuffy stigma needs to fade and is fading with more exposure of serious paranormal things through cable TV and the internet.

 

[Heyo]

Going back to the subject of the paranormal, I have had some experiences that can't be explained. They can't really all be summed up as mental illness either considering some of my family have at times also experienced some form of phenomena at about the same time. I don't have a "ghost problem", but I was wondering how easy it is to accept there is some kind of larger-than-life-supernatural, and about a subject many people don't take seriously, like ghosts, without losing all credibility according to people in the science etc communities.

And say I DO believe in ghosts. How can I react appropriately to things I can't really explain without automatically jumping to the conclusion it's the paranormal, if I do believe?

Make yourself accustomed with the scientific method. Scientists usually pay little regard to anecdotes. Cite studies about the phenomena you are experiencing. In absence of studies, do your own. Make sure that your experiences are repeatable and independently verifiable.

 

[George-ananda]

Make sure that your experiences are repeatable and independently verifiable.

How do you repeat and independently verify a temporary ghost sighting?

Just saying 'then it didn't happen' is of course not true either.

I actually believe in ghosts from the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence.

 

[Heyo]

How do you repeat and independently verify a temporary ghost sighting?

Just saying 'then it didn't happen' is of course not true either.

I actually believe in ghosts from the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence.

I actually don't believe in ghosts from the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence.
The thing is that, without some real, verifiable data you haven't disproved the null hypothesis. You haven't excluded alternative explanations like hallucinations. Your belief has no value in a scientific epistemology. And even if I grant you the phenomena to be real without evidence your hypothesis for the explanation is in no way supported.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I actually don't believe in ghosts from the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence.
The thing is that, without some real, verifiable data you haven't disproved the null hypothesis. You haven't excluded alternative explanations like hallucinations. Your belief has no value in a scientific epistemology. And even if I grant you the phenomena to be real without evidence your hypothesis for the explanation is in no way supported.

The argument may work in a debating context though, depending on how the rules of debate are established and which inferences are used.

 

[George-ananda]

I actually don't believe in ghosts from the quantity, quality and consistency of the anecdotal evidence.
The thing is that, without some real, verifiable data you haven't disproved the null hypothesis. You haven't excluded alternative explanations like hallucinations. Your belief has no value in a scientific epistemology. And even if I grant you the phenomena to be real without evidence your hypothesis for the explanation is in no way supported.

To me there are two questions.

What does science hold?

What does my honest personal reasoning hold?

I was addressing the second question.

 

[Heyo]

To me there are two questions.

What does science hold?

What does my honest personal reasoning hold?

I was addressing the second question.

I was addressing AT-AT's question "I was wondering how easy it is to accept there is some kind of larger-than-life-supernatural, [...] like ghosts, without losing all credibility according to people in the science etc communities.".
And that is not that easy. Scientists are a sceptic bunch and you have to play by their rules if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[George-ananda]

I was addressing AT-AT's question "I was wondering how easy it is to accept there is some kind of larger-than-life-supernatural, [...] like ghosts, without losing all credibility according to people in the science etc communities.".
And that is not that easy. Scientists are a sceptic bunch and you have to play by their rules if you want to be taken seriously.

I addressed that question too, and chimed that a lot of the old stuffiness is starting to break. There are things like parapsychology, post-materialist science and physicists talking about things that are way beyond our ability to get our heads around.

I believe science of the future will become more fantastic. If there are controversies now then that is part of science too.

 

[Heyo]

The argument may work in a debating context though, depending on how the rules of debate are established and which inferences are used.

You could get away with it if you use scientific terminology mixed with some mysticism into some irritatingly vague and hard to decipher language. Deepak Chopra has mastered that art.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.” ― W.C. Fields

 

[George-ananda]

You could get away with it if you use scientific terminology mixed with some mysticism into some irritatingly vague and hard to decipher language. Deepak Chopra has mastered that art.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.” ― W.C. Fields

I like Deepak although he is not always the best communicator orally.

I think sometimes the excessive mocking of him comes from those with a subconscious fear of having lived lives one step behind the future.

I for one have come to believe we do live in a consciousness created reality as opposed to a physically created reality.

We’ll see next century if I was right lol.