It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Skeptics Dilemma

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I asked the question earlier, can extra-terrestrials or extra-terrestrial beings be the most likely explanation for abduction cases, eyewitness ccounts, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures and video and many of you debunkers said no. You then said you would have to "prove" that extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings exist before they could be the most likely possibility for these things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, using your own theory I could just as easily say that abductions are carried out by Puglin, prince of fairy land! I can't prove he exists just like you can't prove that extraterrestrials exist therefore, again using your reasoning, he is just as liekly a candidate for being the guilty party where abductions are concerned as your aliens.
Before anything, or anyone, is considered as a suspect for being behind the alien abduction scenario you first of all have to rationally prove that they exist. otherwise you are literally putting the cart before the horse!




posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I asked the question earlier, can extra-terrestrials or extra-terrestrial beings be the most likely explanation for abduction cases, eyewitness ccounts, mass sightings, trace evidence, pictures and video and many of you debunkers said no. You then said you would have to "prove" that extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings exist before they could be the most likely possibility for these things.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, using your own theory I could just as easily say that abductions are carried out by Puglin, prince of fairy land! I can't prove he exists just like you can't prove that extraterrestrials exist therefore, again using your reasoning, he is just as liekly a candidate for being the guilty party where abductions are concerned as your aliens.
Before anything, or anyone, is considered as a suspect for being behind the alien abduction scenario you first of all have to rationally prove that they exist. otherwise you are literally putting the cart before the horse!


This is a perfect example of some people who claim to be skeptics abandoning reason.

You somehow equate puglin of fairy land with extra-terrestrial and or extra dimensional beings and this is just intellectually dishonest.

I have debated open minded skeptics who would never say something so illogical.

With extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional beings you have eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence, abduction cases. You have accounts from high ranking government officials, pilots, astronauts, police officers, military and more.

You even have people like Harvard Professor John Mack investigating abduction cases.

So when you try to equate some fairy with the evidence that supports extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings it's just being intellectually dishonest and it goes to my point that pseudo and bogus skeptics don't want to weight these things within reason so they can throw out any illogical explanation and give them all equal probability of being true.

This is a classic example of the difference between bogus or pseudo skeptics and open minded skeptics who would not make such a silly comparison.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


You somehow equate puglin of fairy land with extra-terrestrial and or extra dimensional beings and this is just intellectually dishonest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute utter nonsense. I could argue that Puglin of fairy land is as real to me as your aliens are to you. He has as much evidence for his reality as your aliens do, and just like your aliens there is no evidence whatsoever for his existence.
It is your argument that aliens are somehow widely accepted and therefore are real that is intellectually dishonest.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Bogus Skepticism in this context first arose when MarsAttax (a very nice and charitable person) used the term Philosophical Skepticism as a very charitable olive branch in order to draw C.H.U.D. away from personal attacks and back into relevant debate.


Personal attacks? talk about twisting the truth lol

If stating my opinion on the subject of UFOs is a personal attack, then I'm guilty.


Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
But you SHOULD read the thread, and the clear bogus skepticism exhibited by C.H.U.D. that's where this debate started


Please post examples of this "bogus skepticism", instead of throwing around baseless accusations.

Of course, since my opinion does not agree with yours, that makes me a "bogus skeptic"?

Welcome to my ignore list by the way.

I'm not going to participate in these arguments any more, because you and others are acting like 10 year olds.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


With extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional beings you have eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence, abduction cases. You have accounts from high ranking government officials, pilots, astronauts, police officers, military and more.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For faerie folk you have masses of eye witness accounts and meetings. Go to the Isle Of Man or Ireland and you'll find scores of people who believe in the little folk. Does it make them real? Of course it doesn't. And as far as we know neither are your aliens.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


That doesn't equate to proof. Abduction scenarios have been successfully recreated in laboratory situations by manipulating certain parts of the brain. Occam's Razor would say that this is the most likely scenario as we have scientific data to back it up, which we don't have for aliens. Existence of UFOs are evidence of numerous other theories as well and to say their mere existence is proof of the ET hypothesis simply shows a bias to your belief and ignores all of the other theories. As for witnesses, let me just say look throughout history. There have been similar reports of mysterious entities throughout all time, it hasn't been until recently that they've claimed to be aliens. Before that they were such mythical creatures as elves, dwarves, and goblins. Why is it that believers tend to ignore these accounts and accept the claim that when these beings say they're aliens it's the truth? Furthermore, believers keep pointing to high ranking people in the military who claim these things are aliens as proof for the ET theory. Yet when other military officials come out and claim aliens don't exist they're labeled as disinfo agents. How can you be sure the military officials you believe are actually the ones telling the truth other than the fact that they're telling you what you want to hear?



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


If you have evidence for Puglin of fairy land then present it and lets weigh it within reason.

If you have no evidence for Puglin of fairy land then you were being intellectually dishonest and just equating any evidence to extra-terrestrial and or extra-dimensional beings.

I'm waiting for your evidence of Puglin of fairy land
.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by platosallegory
 


That doesn't equate to proof. Abduction scenarios have been successfully recreated in laboratory situations by manipulating certain parts of the brain. Occam's Razor would say that this is the most likely scenario as we have scientific data to back it up, which we don't have for aliens. Existence of UFOs are evidence of numerous other theories as well and to say their mere existence is proof of the ET hypothesis simply shows a bias to your belief and ignores all of the other theories. As for witnesses, let me just say look throughout history. There have been similar reports of mysterious entities throughout all time, it hasn't been until recently that they've claimed to be aliens. Before that they were such mythical creatures as elves, dwarves, and goblins. Why is it that believers tend to ignore these accounts and accept the claim that when these beings say they're aliens it's the truth? Furthermore, believers keep pointing to high ranking people in the military who claim these things are aliens as proof for the ET theory. Yet when other military officials come out and claim aliens don't exist they're labeled as disinfo agents. How can you be sure the military officials you believe are actually the ones telling the truth other than the fact that they're telling you what you want to hear?


Another example of pseudo or bogus skepticism.

First you say because it could be recreated in a lab by intelligent doctors that explains it.

Who created these things with abduction cases? Were the intelligent doctors there to create the abduction experice?

You just said that the abduction experience can be recreated in a lab by intelligent doctors manipulating certain parts of the brain.

If you ask me this is some great evidence that supports abduction cases because if the intelligent doctors were not there to manipulate the brain when these experiences occured, who was manipulating the brain? Intelligent beings like extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings?

You then just assume that those in the military are lying. Where's your evidence? Where's the evidence that these people are liars or there known to make up stories?

You can't just throw out this silly assumption in a vacuum.

This is the problem. Most pseudo and bogus skeptics do not use reason and logic.

In order to claim that these people in the military or police officers, astronauts and more are lying you have to provide some evidence that these people are known liars or they are known to make up stories.

Saying these people could be lying is like saying that they could have ate corned beef for lunch every day. It's meaningless without any evidence to support the claim.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Excellent point about goblins etc. There is always the temptation to believe that our understanding today is almost complete whereas people in the past were confused because they didn't understand about space travel etc. But the chances are that we are just as in the dark as our forebears and that the phenomenon is something as outside our own understanding as the idea of quantum mechanics would be to someone in the medieval era ( I know you were actually arguing it is all in the mind).

By the way can you give a source for the recreation of alien abductions in the laboratory? I wasn't aware this had been done - cheers



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


C.H.U.D. I have already quoted you in this thread demonstrating your use of bogus skepticism, so I don't know why you are asking for proof again. Simply scroll back to where I pointed out that you had repeatedly made the false claim - contrary to reason and accepted procedure in EVERY field of investigation - that "no amount of evidence would ever constitute proof" and that "evidence and proof are two completely different things". Such a claim is bogus skepticism. I proved that claim to be absolutely false in the thread you wrote it in, and I'd be happy to do so again here if you wish.

For another example scroll back to where mmiichael dismissed all of the evidence given by all the Disclosure Project witnesses because he thought one of them - Corso - lacked credibility, therefore he "assumes" (his word) that this means that all of the disclosure witnesses must lack credibility and therefore all of their evidence should be discounted.

For another scroll back to where Mintwithahole dismissed all of the eyewitness sightings of UFO's and non-terrestrial craft by astronauts and trained pilots by claiming that there was more evidence for Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy because he had seen Father Christmas for himself in a store window.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I need to go back and read the report again but the way the "abductions" were recreated were by stimulating certain parts of the brain during sleep. It was non-invasive and could naturally occur during sleep under certain circumstances. So, that's not proof for abduction scenarios in anyway it's proof that our understanding of the brain is still limited and it could easily be the cause for most abduction stories considering the majority of them occur during sleep. As for the government witnesses, nowhere did I say they lied. I was simply pointing out that believers refuse to believe government officials unless they are telling a story that agrees with their beliefs. You have just as much evidence to say those government and military officials who say aliens don't exist are disinfo agents as I do to say that those officials who say aliens do exist are disinfo agents. It's not proof that aliens exist. Also, what do you have to say that accounts of mythical creatures in the past bear marked similarities to modern "alien" encounters yet we don't treat what the entities said then as credible, yet now when they tell us they're aliens we believe them with no questions asked?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Xcalibur254]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I am gonna copy one of my previous messages :

"There's only one way to study the possibility of ET visitations (probes, crafts, artefacts)

This kind of research is called SETV, SETA, S3ETI, ufology is not part of this kind of research so it is normal to be skeptic because Ufology is not a science but a hobby.

Ufology does not provide & produce & gather scientific facts & data, this is why one have to remain skeptical about the ETH as presented by ufologists.

In my opinion, we should realize that the only thing ufology is able to do is to find prosaic explanations when possible, these are it's limits.

To come up with an "extraordinary" hypothesis such as the ETH, you need facts & data gathered with rigorous protocoles that were developed for this perticular kind of research. Once again, this is the scientific method and it starts with an "O" as Observation. Studying testimonies is not science and is not part of the "observation" process and that is what Ufology is all about, studying testimonies and unreliable data (because it was not gathered for this purpose)"


A simple reminder from wikipedia : Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.


Now, do you guys (believers) understand this ? If you don't, then I cannot do anything for you, I tried at least but if you think that ufology can provide & gather empirical data, well, you do not understand anything about the scientific method and how humans build knowledge.


UFOs & UAPs have to be studied in situ with rigorous protocoles, some scientists understood that, I could name the first one who undestood it and put it into practice : en.wikipedia.org...

Now and let's remember this, maybe not as the truth but as something we should all think about, one astrobiologist (I forgot his name) once said :

"Scientists do not know how to study something that knows it is being studied"

This is a reminder on how hard this kind of research might be if and only if ETI reached our Solar system.


Would you bet your life on that ? I would not as far as I know but you can sure feel free to do so if you wish.




Cheers,
Europa

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Europa733]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by platosallegory
 


I need to go back and read the report again but the way the "abductions" were recreated were by stimulating certain parts of the brain during sleep. It was non-invasive and could naturally occur during sleep under certain circumstances. So, that's not proof for abduction scenarios in anyway it's proof that our understanding of the brain is still limited and it could easily be the cause for most abduction stories considering the majority of them occur during sleep. As for the government witnesses, nowhere did I say they lied. I was simply pointing out that believers refuse to believe government officials unless they are telling a story that agrees with their beliefs. You have just as much evidence to say those government and military officials who say aliens don't exist are disinfo agents as I do to say that those officials who say aliens do exist are disinfo agents. It's not proof that aliens exist. Also, what do you have to say that accounts of mythical creatures in the past bear marked similarities to modern "alien" encounters yet we don't treat what the entities said then as credible, yet now when they tell us they're aliens we believe them with no questions asked?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Xcalibur254]


First, you said they had to manipulate their brains in order to recreate the experience now that you see that actually supports these abduction cases, you say well the doctors really didn't do anything lol. This is too funny. Could you please cite the research and then we can get to the bottom of the story.

Also, you are debating a claim I never made. I never said anything about disinfo agents.

If other military people say that they don't exist then I accept it as their opinion and their entitled to their opinion. They can't say what the other military people experienced so it's just an opinion.

What are they basing their opinion on? So I never said anything about disinfo gents.

You also mentioned proof. I never said I can prove these things but there's alot of things in life that we weigh within reason and we reach a conclusion before we have proved it.

Skeptic are stuck to these certain buzz words because they want you to prove something when I never made the claim.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
You misunderstand, but that is not unusual.


Originally posted by platosallegory
First you say because it could be recreated in a lab by intelligent doctors that explains it.


He presented an explanation. Just as you are presenting an explanation. Why is it he is guilty of un-reason or illogic and you are not, when you are both presenting what you believe to be explanations for the phenomenon.



Originally posted by platosallegory
Who created these things with abduction cases? Were the intelligent doctors there to create the abduction experience?


Dr. Michael Persinger. In the 1980s, he showed that by stimulating the brain with weak magnetic fields, one can induce a paranormal experience; he found that paranormal experiences stimulated were indiscriminable, that is some people thought they were encountering God or demons and some thought they were being abducted by aliens.



Originally posted by platosallegory
...if the intelligent doctors were not there to manipulate the brain when these experiences occured, who was manipulating the brain?


Persinger's research does not prove that aliens are responsible. On the contrary, it could just as easily be that some sort of anomalous electromagnetic activity, perhaps even naturally occurring, could induce these events.


Originally posted by platosallegory
You then just assume that those in the military are lying. Where's your evidence? Where's the evidence that these people are liars or there known to make up stories?


He isn't saying that. What he is presenting is a paradox of witnesses; one group of military witnesses says there is a cover-up and another says there are not. In such a case, who do you believe? We are left in what amounts to a neutral position.


Originally posted by platosallegory
This is the problem. Most pseudo and bogus skeptics do not use reason and logic.


If anything, it are the Disclosurists who are making a "silly assumption," as you put it, who are not using reason or logic. By believing one group over another, accusing the other group of lying, they are engaging in the exact behavior you are accusing skeptics of.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Europa733
"There's only one way to study the possibility of ET visitations (probes, crafts, artefacts)

This kind of research is called SETV, SETA, S3ETI, ufology is not part of this kind of research so it is normal to be skeptic because Ufology is not a science but a hobby.

Ufology does not provide & produce & gather scientific facts & data, this is why one have to remain skeptical about the ETH as presented by ufologists.

In my opinion, we should realize that the only thing ufology is able to do is to find prosaic explanations when possible, these are it's limits.

To come up with an "extraordinary" hypothesis such as the ETH, you need facts & data gathered with rigorous protocoles that were developed for this perticular kind of research. Once again, this is the scientific method and it starts with an "O" as Observation. Studying testimonies is not science and is not part of the "observation" process and that is what Ufology is all about, studying testimonies and unreliable data (because it was not gathered for this purpose)"


A simple reminder from wikipedia : Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.


I agree with most of what you said but it is the application which is flawed IMO. What I mean is, as you said, "To come up with an "extraordinary" hypothesis such as the ETH, you need facts & data gathered with rigorous protocoles that were developed for this perticular kind of research"

Exactly! The protocols need to be relevant to "this particular kind of research" which means that the protocols have to be capable of dealing with the evidence that presents itself with this particular phenomena such as eyewitness testimony, testimony from government officials, implants consisting of non-terrestrial materials, video and photographic evidence etc. etc. etc.

You can't sit there with a bank of test tubes while being buzzed by UFO's saying "sorry, until I have something to put in my test tube we have no proof" LOL

Yes, the scientific method must be used. But it must be done in a way that is applicable to the subject being investigated. What you propose does not do that and so it stalls any investigation and ignores the evidence that is available. In fact, it makes investigation impossible, because the protocols you want to use are not designed for the phenomena you are dealing with or to the way it presents itself. Just as test tubes play little part in establishing the facts in a court - because of the nature of the evidence - they play at limited role in investigating the UFO phenomena at this stage. The UFO phenomenon is unique and requires a unique application of the scientific method, just as the all various branches of science do.

We must use the scientific method but, as in all other fields of investigation, the specific protocols must be applicable to the particular phenomena being investigated and must be designed to address the evidence that it presents.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Dr. Michael Persinger LOL.

I knew this was coming and I was trying to bait the skeptic into bringing up this nonsense.

First there's no natural mechanism to recreate these experiences. Saying that there could be one without any ovidence is like saying Dr. Michael Persinger eats corned beef sandwiches everyday without any evidence. It's meaningless.

Lets talk about what he did to recreate these experiences:

In order to obtain an abduction-like response from the subjects, researchers had to direct a particular pattern (computer-controlled) of magnetic stimulation to a particular part of the brain. Even if seismic activity or tectonic strain does indeed release magnetic energy that reaches the surface in sufficient strength to affect someone's behavior, it certainly does not beam it into that person's frontal lobes in a particular pattern. So, how does the helmet prove anything about abductions? The answer is that it doesn't. It doesn't prove anything about them. What it proves is that a combination of sensory isolation and a helmet that directs magnetism in specific patterns to specific areas of the brain can produce some psychological effects. We know that some drugs can do the same, and that sometimes sensory deprivation alone can also produce such effects.

In order to obtain an abduction-like response from their magnetically stimulated subjects, researchers had to shine a flashlight at them and slowly lower, then raise it. Who's shining a flashlight at abductees?

Are TST proponents claiming that abductees have more magnetically sensitive temporal lobes than other people? TST researchers have not verified that abductees are being exposed to magnetic fields at the time of their abduction experience. In fact, they seem to be doing little actual study of the abductees themselves. We are all regularly exposed to magnetic fields of even greater strength than those used in the helmet experiments. Magnetic fields/EM fields are generated by every power line and every electrical appliance in our homes and even stronger ones are generated by machines in many workplaces. If electromagnetic fields from far underground can cause abductees to hallucinate, then why don't stronger and nearer electromagnetic fields cause abductees to hallucinate? (See how the Sagan quote above applies here...) To say that these everyday electromagnetic fields aren't the "right kind" won't suffice as a response to this unless you prove that tectonic strain DOES produce the "right kind" of electromagnetic fields (If, indeed, there is a "right kind".).

There must be tectonic stress release with accompanying EM fields when abductees are in the presence of others, at work or at play. Why no effects at those times?

On the other hand, if abductions are merely temporal lobe hallucinations of those with sensitive temporal lobes, how is it that there are sometimes multiple abductions, such as Betty & Barney Hill, or the three women who were abducted in Kentucky, or the four men in Maine? In these multiple abduction cases, everyone had the experience. If our premise is that some people have abduction experiences because their temporal lobes are more sensitive to magnetic stimulation, then we would expect there to be cases where some people in a group (Those with sensitive temporal lobes...) would have an experience, yet others (Those with less sensitive temporal lobes...) would not have any experience at all.

www.ufosetc.com...

If you ask me Dr. Michael Persinger actually provides more evidence that these abduction cases occur because you have to manipulate the brain in order to produce any kind of experience and the question becomes who is manipulating the brain during these experiences.[edit on 18-3-2009 by platosallegory]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
You somehow equate puglin of fairy land with extra-terrestrial and or extra dimensional beings and this is just intellectually dishonest.


Actually, the intellectual dishonest is claiming that you know for a fact they are aliens. There is just as much evidence they are aliens as there is for them being faeries, succubi/incubi, or any host of entities that have been associated with similar phenomenon to abduction cases.


Originally posted by platosallegory
With extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional beings you have eyewitness accounts, mass sightings, pictures, video, trace evidence, abduction cases. You have accounts from high ranking government officials, pilots, astronauts, police officers, military and more.


Actually, none of that is evidence of it being extraterrestrial. It may be evidence that a non-human-intelligence is driving the phenomenon, but it does not tell us the nature of this intelligence or its origin.


Originally posted by platosallegory
So when you try to equate some fairy with the evidence that supports extra-terrestrials or extra-dimensional beings it's just being intellectually dishonest...


No, again the only person here being intellectually dishonest is you, Polomontana/Platosallegory. You attack Mint for presenting a case for faeries, when you are presenting the same case. You claim it is being driven by "extra-dimensional" entities; by virtue of what we know about them from folklore, faeries are extradimensional entities.



Originally posted by platosallegory
This is a classic example of the difference between bogus or pseudo skeptics and open minded skeptics who would not make such a silly comparison.


If anything, this does not demonstrate any lack of open-mindedness on Mint's part, but rather your own closed-mindedness. Even if this phenomenon is being driven by a non-human-intelligence, none of us are even close to being able to fathom it. However, you think you have all the answers, attacking anyone who offers an alternative viewpoint. You are the very definition of closed-mindedness.



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


First off I never claimed I had all of the answers so again the skeptic is trying to debate something that I never claimed.

Secondly, I gave your friend every chance to present evidence that supports Plugin of fairy land.

I'm still waiting for him/her to present the evidence and we can weigh it within reason.

I suspect that there isn't any evidence and that supports my point.

Also, please stop trying to debate claims that I never made.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by platosallegory]



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Abduction scenarios have been successfully recreated in laboratory situations by manipulating certain parts of the brain.


I know that's the popular myth, but this is not accurate by any means any objective review would accept.

First of all, the majority of what Persinger has been able to accomplish in the lab by mucking about with people's brains amounts to things like "I have the sensation my leg is crawling up the wall!"

After some time of those sorts of things leading to highly publicized theories about how "maybe this would explain alien abduction accounts!" a few of Persinger's subjects -- one was featured on a television special during an experiment, a young college man -- promptly began insisting that this was what they were experiencing during the experiment -- the young man in question with a grin and sneer on his face, in his delight; I have seen psychics with turbans I trusted the 'subjective reporting' from more than this subject.

There is no doubleblinding protocol in these experiments; all the reporting is fully subjective; nobody ever, EVER reported anything even remotely like 'alien abduction' in Persinger's work until it became highly publicized that perhaps his work could "explain away" abductions, at which point a small number of subjects began adamantly insisting this is what they were experiencing -- and sounding like people who watch too much TV.

I will do those who doubt this subject the honor of not insulting them by considering that evidence or lack of evidence either; regardless which side of the debate one is on, there's got to be data better than that.

I might add that I am not against the idea that the brain could even be a sort of 'doorway' to 'levels of perception' (for lack of better terminology) that might literally involve what we'd call an experiential reality.

I think some nexus where Persinger's work meets the McKenna's, for example, is a very interesting sort of idea.

I also think it's not impossible that our physiological definition of reality is learned as well as hardfiltered; in other words, that the amount of information our body is innately capable of physically perceiving is vastly greater than that information which we normally DO perceive consciously; and that potentially, chronic exposure to certain frequencies might cause some neurological side-effect where people's conscious awareness of certain information (vibrating energy, like anything else) may start to 'shift' so that it becomes more conscious for them.

I don't feel this would invalidate psychic functioning, abduction experiences, or other things often explained away with the idea of technology such as Persinger's; it's science, ALL legit data is good, it doesn't matter what the answer IS; only that there is a genuine quest for information that may lead to an answer eventually.

However, using the results of Persinger's trials as a magic wand to explain away detailed 'encounter' accounts from around the world and throughout time no less, is insufficient. It is my opinion that Persinger has devalued his own worthwhile work by his personal behavior regarding this subject, both its science and his role in media. I believe his work is fascinating and deserves better.

Best,
PJ



posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by platosallegory
First there's no natural mechanism to recreate these experiences. Saying that there could be one without any evidence is like saying Dr. Michael Persinger eats corned beef sandwiches everyday without any evidence. It's meaningless.


Once again, you show your own lack of intellectually honesty. Earlier in this thread, you attacked people for saying we cannot investigate a phenomenon unless we first prove it exists. And here you have done the exactly that. I presented the possibility it could be a more-or-less natural phenomenon; we don't know that there is, but Persinger has shown it is a possibility. However, you say we cannot explore that possibility because the possibility has not been proven to exist.

You are intellectually dishonest and a hypocrite.


Originally posted by platosallegory
If you ask me Dr. Michael Persinger actually provides more evidence that these abduction cases...


What Persinger did was not provide an explanation for the alien abduction experience. Instead what he has shown is you do not need aliens to have an alien abduction experience.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join