So far here it is, his last response and mine:
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
@Baron: This stuff can't be proven using the scientific method.
Then why is there any reason to believe it exists?
Personal subjective experience.
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
Even with telekinetic feats there's always room for naysayers to say that it's photo/video manipulation, the wind, etc.
This is true for anything. Even though most people would agree that the Earth is roughly spherical, there still are true believers in a flat earth. Does their "nay-saying" mean anything? No.
No arguments there.
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
All of psionics and occultism is subjective.
OK, I don't have any beef with this statement if my interpretation is right: That occultism is subjective, meaning that for people who believe in it, they know that it exists 'only to them' and not objectively in reality, much like an imaginary friend or a specific recurring dream.
That's about right.
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
The problem is that most of these things you can't do until you believe in them, and most people refuse to believe in them until they can do them or see them.
This sounds an awful lot like selection bias. Whereas a nonbeliever finds ordinary explanations for ordinary phenomenon, when he becomes a believer he suddenly finds extraordinary explanations for the same ordinary phenomena.
And who is to say both explanations aren't correct? Quantum mechanics states that our mere observance of reality affects reality. For the non-believer, conflict in the surrounding social sphere may be due to overall social ills, until he becomes a believer and these conflicts are then attributed to the lunar phase. Who's to say that he wasn't correct in his first *and* second assumptions?
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
I can personally demonstrate the existence of psi and psychokinetic ability, but that does ******** over the Internet.
I'm be willing to meet anyone who claims to have this power if they live close to me, to take the problem of the internet out. Otherwise it's useless to claim anything extraordinary without evidence: You've heard the saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well in this case, any sort of evidence is lacking.
I, nay, no one in this guild has to prove anything to you. If you want proof, seek it out, as it's been established that you're not going to find it on the Internet, perhaps go outside and look, or Providence forbid, you put effort into it yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
You either choose to believe or you don't.
I don't choose to believe in something or not. Belief for me is not a matter of choice. "Oh, today I will believe in the Jewish God. Tomorrow I will believe in the Hindu gods!" My beliefs are based on what the best explanations are. There is no 'choosing' involved.
Best explanations according to what? Occam's Razor or personal filter? Do you believe something just because you're told by someone that supposedly has more authority than yourself? For instance, have you ever seen the Earth from space? Ever seen an atom? Etc, etc. You accept this because your limited experience, combined with the work of others, tells what such things look like.
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
We can't prove it to you.
Yes you can. I just don't think anyone (at least yet, I hope-really hope) is willing to prove it to me.
Because you're asking for something that can't be given. We cannot prove it to you. You can prove it to yourself, but we can't.
Baron von Turkeypants
Obscurus
That said, either stay and be constructive or leave and stop badgering people.
I am being constructive. I am trying to get to the truth of things. You, however, tell me to stfu and gtfo. Which is the constructive one?
You're not being constructive. You're making snarky remarks and intentionally giving people a hard time after we've repeatedly told you that we can't give you what you're looking for.
____________________
You won't have eyes tonight. You won't have ears or a tongue; you will wander the underworld blind, deaf and dumb...
Quote:
And who is to say both explanations aren't correct? Quantum mechanics states that our mere observance of reality affects reality. For the non-believer, conflict in the surrounding social sphere may be due to overall social ills, until he becomes a believer and these conflicts are then attributed to the lunar phase. Who's to say that he wasn't correct in his first *and* second assumptions?
No, quantum mechanics states that you can't simultaneously know the position and momentum of a subatomic particle, the angular position and angular momentum of a subatomic particle, or any two non-commutative properties of subatomic particles. Who's to say he isn't correct in the first and second assumptions? Simple reason. Is there a theory as to how the lunar phase directly causes those conflicts? If there is, is it testable? If it isn't, it's worthless as a theory and should not even be considered.
Quote:
I, nay, no one in this guild has to prove anything to you. If you want proof, seek it out, as it's been established that you're not going to find it on the Internet, perhaps go outside and look, or Providence forbid, you put effort into it yourself and come to your own conclusions.
I didn't say anyone had to prove anything to me. You're using a straw man argument. Once again, I am seeking it out. If you'd read my astral projection thread and remembered what it said, you'll see I'm looking for a method to try it out. Yet you still manage to say I'm not trying. This baffles me.
Quote:
Best explanations according to what? Occam's Razor or personal filter? Do you believe something just because you're told by someone that supposedly has more authority than yourself? For instance, have you ever seen the Earth from space? Ever seen an atom? Etc, etc. You accept this because your limited experience, combined with the work of others, tells what such things look like.
No, I believe the atom exists because of experiments that observe things like Brownian motion, the fact that our current model of the atom explains so much more about chemistry than any other theory, and that there is no better theory as to what constitutes matter. You don't need to see the Earth from space to know it's round. You can do a few simple calculations involving high school geometry and shadow positions. People don't have to see macroscopic evolution happen to believe in it, as there's so much more 'indirect' proof, but that doesn't matter to you, does it? You don't care about how I've come to accept the Earth's topology, you just want to show that my beliefs are no better than yours.
Quote:
Because you're asking for something that can't be given. We cannot prove it to you. You can prove it to yourself, but we can't.
Like I've said, there is a way you can prove it. No one's willing to take the chance, though, and my guess is because it's on the fear that they might be wrong. But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
Quote:
You're not being constructive. You're making snarky remarks and intentionally giving people a hard time after we've repeatedly told you that we can't give you what you're looking for.
No, I've already showed how you can give me proof. You're just unwilling to accept there's a method for objective verification. Snarky remarks? Me? You've the one calling people asshats and telling them to gtfo and stfu, not me.
...and all the dead will know: this is Hector, fool who thought he killed Achilles.
Any thoughts?
