To all believers (and skeptics) here

[seren]

I've been reading some of the threads where people who "believe", whether in spirits, universal energy, or psychics, have been asking questions of skeptics, or psychics have posted claiming to be able to make predictions. I've seen the threads descend in to abuse or circular arguments spinning totally out of control.

I've a terrible feeling I'm going to get flamed from both sides on this! I hope you will read this and take it in the spirit in which it is meant. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that genuine. productive discussions cannot take place between believers and skeptics and I would like to try to get that going right here. I'm sorry if anyone finds this patronising or annoying. It's really not meant to be. I'm just thinking how we can make it work.

Believers, in order to understand what skeptics are about, what they are saying, it's necessary to put your feelings about your beliefs aside for the duration of the discussion. Nobody's taking them from you, those feelings and beliefs are always there, you've just put them safe in a small box on the mantelpiece for a while. I know you are openminded people who can easily see something from someone else's point of view, that's what spiritual people do, so for a little while, that's what you should do. That way, nobody can offend you, nobody's attacking you when they challenge your beliefs.

Also, please try to remember that despite how it might appear "skeptic" is not the same as "disbeliever". You know what? I want to believe. Really. I used to have some spiritual beliefs once. You really don't know how much I WISH paranormal and spiritual things were true. I'm waiting for you, really waiting for someone to prove it to me. I'm not hostile to your view, I just don't see any proof. I hope you can see why and agree that your personal experience, things that have happened to you, just don't help me?

As for skeptics, well I hate to criticise as I'm new at this and I know some of you have have been thinking wool-free and trying to get others to for years. I'm sure you've seen it all. Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs springs to mind.

However, with my dubious credentials as an ex-believer, I want to say that sometimes I think your style is abrupt and facts are not presented in an accessible way. I appreciate (believe me) that after a while it gets frustrating repeating the same thing over and over without getting the meaning across, but I think perhaps that repetition is part of the problem. The message isn't being tailored to the receiver, there's no significant adaptation to suit the audience. Stating that someone has just made an ad hominem attack is likely to be ignored because people don't know what it is and can't be bothered to find out. Saying that calling someone names doesn't help their argument will probably get a better response. Giving examples of logical fallacies that engage the emotions I think might hit home better (I don't know- set it in a hospital or something- someone's granny's life is at risk because of a logical fallacy. ).

Presenting the facts or the logical arguments I think we all agree is not enough. Leading a horse to water and all that. I think those science and critical thinking types (as opposed to those nodding in the background like me) might try a more "coaching" approach. There's nothing quite like discovering something for yourself and maybe we should ask more questions of people ("Why do you think it's paranormal?" "What other explanations have you considered?" "If that happened to me I think I'd wonder xyz. Did you consider that?" "How do you think science might answer that question?").

Well. That's my two penn'th. Make of it what you will. If we can begin again here with discussion about someone's beliefs, I'd be really pleased.

Thanks for reading.

[Admin]

Believers cannot look at their beliefs in an objective manner as it would lead to the breakdown of their beliefs!

They want to validate and/or justify their beliefs but in order to do so they have to use fallacious reasoning and a non-scientific approach. Again, if they used sound reasoning, science and logic their belief system would come crumbling down before them.

So I don't hold out much, if any, hope that we're ever going to get anywhere by tackling, challenging or debating believers - it just doesn't work.

What would work, IMO, is for inquisitive people to come here and ask questions on various topics as that way we could engage in meaningful debate without challenging someone's beliefs.

It rarely works that way however. Forums tend to be insular or adversarial.

Don't be too dismissive of confrontation though. Research has shown that we often learn a lot through confrontation - it forces us to re-evaluate our ideas.

[seren]

I'm hoping that the reason some people are here (Zaira for example) really is to look at what they believe and seriously evaluate it. In which case they will be openminded enough to try putting their ideas safely away and trying a new way of thinking. Our job is to communicate that new way of thinking in a manner that's not too alien.

Maybe you're right and it's a hopeless cause, but I'm going to keep trying- it's important!

As for confrontation- perhaps it depends on the type/quality? Because all I can see is the retreat into ever deeper trenches and the sticking of fingers ever further into ears.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless dreamer.....

[Tin Lizzie]

Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.

To tell someone who is experienced with spirit that such things are merely hallucinations is like telling me that my legs actually belong to my next-door neighbour. I can't accept it because I know that is not the case. I am willing to discuss things, in the interests of making progress.

Firstly we have the difficulty of 'testing': the overriding force in the spirit world is pure love. Without it it is very difficult to make communication. Sadly though this love is something that can not be measured, recorded, observed and bottled up for reproducibility. I can attempt to explain how this energy manifests itself in the physical world, but it would be nothing more than educated ideas.

Secondly is the concept of 'evidence'. I have said before that if the police were to work on the principle of suspecting every witness to be lying, embellishment, unconscious distortion of memory or hallucination, then society would be all the worse for it. Whilst acknowledging some cases may be explained by what we already know in science, it is somewhat ridiculous to automatically dismiss each and every witness statement, particularly where multiple tetimony is provided.

I would like to point out that science is not infallible; even the great Einstein was quoted as saying he believed he had 'got it all wrong'. Science is about discovering nature, and we sure don't know everything there is to know. Furthermore, whilst the laws of science change with time, the laws of nature do not; they carry on working away regardless of whether we know of them or not. In the middle of this, existing alongside us and sharing our space, is the spirit realm.

I would recommend that anyone interested reads 'Voices in my ear' by Doris Stokes. After a few pages you should realise how spirits are clearly and profoundly distinguishable from hallucinations.

[Admin]

Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.

To tell someone who is experienced with spirit that such things are merely hallucinations is like telling me that my legs actually belong to my next-door neighbour.

See what I mean Seren?

[MRT]

I'm sorry Tin Lizzie but there is good evidence that witness testimony is unreliable. It is so bad that I'm not sure it should play ANY part in the justice system. I certainly wouldn't want to be convicted of anything on the say so of witnesses - even a whole group of them! Try looking at this study we did in ASSAP testing how reliable witnesses were in good observing conditions (http://www.assap.org/newsite/PDF%20p...witnesses.html).

[Tin Lizzie]

Oh come on, that bit about my legs was an attempt at humour...guess i'll have to try without?

Thanks for that link MRT.
Do you think the 'testimony' of people who work with their ability on a day-to-day basis may be more reliable than, for example, a person who witnesses something only once?

[MRT]

What we've found is that people tend to 'see' what they're expecting. When presented with the unfamiliar, they often interpret it as paranormal. Indeed, most paranormal reports consist of someone experiencing the unfamiliar (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Xenonormal.html). So seeing something only once is likely to be a very unreliable report. Seeing something a lot, on the other hand, could mean you miss something that's changed ('attention blindness' - DrB's daytime job!). As I say, witnesses are really unreliable.

[Tin Lizzie]

Okay, so an individual statement on a one-off experience may be regarded as unlikely to be accurate, to say the least. I personally would not disagree with this. In the case of sittings where one or more person is given precise, detailed information from spirits and in cases where more than one medium is tuned in to the same spirit, would the precise nature of these messages, along with the corroboration of more than one witness, provide perhaps more reliable evidence?

[MRT]

I was talking mainly about witnesses to spontaneous events. Mediumship is something quite different. Mediumship is more like a controlled experiment. You need to remove all possible 'normal' sources of information as well as establishing a neutral way of judging the accuracy of such information. If you are just attending an uncontrolled sitting, held on the psychic's terms, the results cannot provide any useful scientific evidence.

[Tin Lizzie]

I understand that, to the scientist seeking absolute proof, no stone can be left unturned. From talking with psychic / medium friends and through my own limited experience I am aware that you can not, except in rare cases, ask specific questions and expect spirits to answer them. In most cases spirits will only make contact if there is a good reason, such as easing the grief of their loved ones on earth by proving their continued existence, or to give advice and sometimes warnings. This means that often enough there will not be a message at all, or there may be a message that is actually intended for a friend or relative of the sitter and its meaning is lost on the sitter. A sticky point, and maybe one that is best answered by the practising psychics and mediums.

[MRT]

Consider the following scenario. Suppose there are no spirits and that, obviously, mediums cannot communicate with them. Suppose that mediums believe they can communicate with spirits but instead they are getting 'messages' from their own unconscious. Such 'messages' will appear as if from another personality. Perhaps the 'messages' will be forgotten fragments of information, drawn back into the medium's conscious mind by the appearance and conversation of their sitter. Or they could be things noticed unconsciously about the sitter from body language, clothing, accent, etc. Some of these 'messages' may well appear highly relevant. However, if the sitter asks a specific detailed question, there may be no answer because the unconscious part of the medium's mind simply doesn't know.

Now, how would you differentiate between this hypothetical situation and visiting a 'genuine' medium?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I understand that, to the scientist seeking absolute proof, no stone can be left unturned. From talking with psychic / medium friends and through my own limited experience I am aware that you can not, except in rare cases, ask specific questions and expect spirits to answer them. In most cases spirits will only make contact if there is a good reason, such as easing the grief of their loved ones on earth by proving their continued existence, or to give advice and sometimes warnings. This means that often enough there will not be a message at all, or there may be a message that is actually intended for a friend or relative of the sitter and its meaning is lost on the sitter. A sticky point, and maybe one that is best answered by the practising psychics and mediums.

Therein lies the answer.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.

To tell someone who is experienced with spirit that such things are merely hallucinations is like telling me that my legs actually belong to my next-door neighbour. I can't accept it because I know that is not the case. I am willing to discuss things, in the interests of making progress.

Firstly we have the difficulty of 'testing': the overriding force in the spirit world is pure love. Without it it is very difficult to make communication. Sadly though this love is something that can not be measured, recorded, observed and bottled up for reproducibility. I can attempt to explain how this energy manifests itself in the physical world, but it would be nothing more than educated ideas.

This 'love' only works between believers obviously, and not in controlled conditions where it disappears.

Secondly is the concept of 'evidence'. I have said before that if the police were to work on the principle of suspecting every witness to be lying, embellishment, unconscious distortion of memory or hallucination, then society would be all the worse for it. Whilst acknowledging some cases may be explained by what we already know in science, it is somewhat ridiculous to automatically dismiss each and every witness statement, particularly where multiple tetimony is provided.

On the contrary, if we accepted every extraordinary claim without seeking evidence, then we would be in a total mess. Witness statement must be validated.

I would like to point out that science is not infallible; even the great Einstein was quoted as saying he believed he had 'got it all wrong'. Science is about discovering nature, and we sure don't know everything there is to know. Furthermore, whilst the laws of science change with time, the laws of nature do not; they carry on working away regardless of whether we know of them or not. In the middle of this, existing alongside us and sharing our space, is the spirit realm.

I would recommend that anyone interested reads 'Voices in my ear' by Doris Stokes. After a few pages you should realise how spirits are clearly and profoundly distinguishable from hallucinations.

Of course science isn't infallible. It makes mistakes, but those mistakes are discovered and revealed when experiments can't be repeated. Thats the way science works.

Doris Stokes seems to be increasingly mentioned as a true and genuine psychic (things are getting desperate as more and more current day ones are discredited I guess...), but you only have to look at her wikipedia entry to see she is far from squeaky clean.

Tin Lizzie, are you considering that she may also not be all that she seems to be?

[Tin Lizzie]

This 'love' only works between believers obviously, and not in controlled conditions where it disappears.

I really would like to see these 'controlled conditions' and how they suggest the 'disappearance' (as opposed to the non-appearance?) of spirit energy.

On the contrary, if we accepted every extraordinary claim without seeking evidence, then we would be in a total mess. Witness statement must be validated.

I agree, but not to the extent that we are all guilty until proved innocent. To assume that the spirit plane does not exist because we can not validate witness statements would be a flawed judgement.

Of course science isn't infallible. It makes mistakes, but those mistakes are discovered and revealed when experiments can't be repeated. Thats the way science works.

Sometimes it is experimental/human error that leads to irregularity in results but to keep on track here, mistakes are also realised when new technologies become available that lead to new understanding.

Doris Stokes seems to be increasingly mentioned as a true and genuine psychic (things are getting desperate as more and more current day ones are discredited I guess...), but you only have to look at her wikipedia entry to see she is far from squeaky clean.

Wikipedia also seems to be increasingly mentioned here but you only have to look at the conditions for placing articles to know that anyone can say pretty much whatever they want on there.

Doris stokes admitted to 'cheating' a bit by eavesdropping etc. She did this in the relatively early days of her career and her spirit guide forced her to confess this in front of her audience, which she did. Her reasons were not entirely self-centred: people travelled a long way and paid good money. At times when the voices suddenly stopped talking, she would refer to these means to keep the sittings flowing until the voices came back again. This still does not take away the fact that spirits came to her; she could often see them and often they came to her not long after crossing over. The number of people i've known who saw her testify to this. For me, of course.