Claiming "it's pareidolia" is just as invalid as claiming it's not!

Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct. www.skepdic.com...

Claiming "it's pareidolia" is just as invalid as claiming it's not in many cases at least.

I have no doubt that pareidolia is a real phenomenon. But, when you've got lots of clear circumstantial evidence of something else going on such as what happened on 911, the evidence starts to mount I think:


www.youtube.com...

I'll admit that I believe there were probably manifestations of demonic activity in the smoke and clouds that day. Here's an outline of my argument for why I believe my view is justified:

1. Demonic activity was involved in the events of 911. Whether the activity was only carried out by humans or not, I think most people agree it was all so evil that the word "demonic" is an appropriate adjective to describe what took place.

2. Demonic apparitions probably appeared along with the corresponding demonic activity on that day. I've seen enough evidence to convince me that it's possible and if there was ever a time when it should have happened, it was on 911 in my opinion.

Those claiming "it's pareidolia" have only one argument to stand on:

Demonic apparitions have not been proven to be real so therefore anytime someone claims to see one it must be pareidolia.

The generic form of that argument goes like this:

If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

That's called "Argument from ignorance."
en.wikipedia.org...

I'll admit that my argument for believing that demonic apparitions probably appeared in the smoke and clouds on 911 is weak. I don't believe my argument is fallacious because I'm not claiming to be espousing absolute truth.

However, the people claiming "it's pareidolia" are relying on a fallacious argument and they are claiming to be espousing absolute truth.

Claiming "it's pareidolia" is just as invalid as claiming it's not!

a reply to: Profusion

Sometimes it actually is, but it gets overused. Also, who are these people who feel the need to capitalize it? Like its such an honored concept in the realm of debunkery. Right up there with "Occam's Razor".

originally posted by: Profusion

Pareidolia is a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct. www.skepdic.com...

Claiming "it's pareidolia" is just as invalid as claiming it's not in many cases at least.

I have no doubt that pareidolia is a real phenomenon. But, when you've got lots of clear circumstantial evidence of something else going on such as what happened on 911, the evidence starts to mount I think:

www.youtube.com...

I'll admit that I believe there were probably manifestations of demonic activity in the smoke and clouds that day. Here's an outline of my argument for why I believe my view is justified:

1. Demonic activity was involved in the events of 911. Whether the activity was only carried out by humans or not, I think most people agree it was all so evil that the word "demonic" is an appropriate adjective to describe what took place.

2. Demonic apparitions probably appeared along with the corresponding demonic activity on that day. I've seen enough evidence to convince me that it's possible and if there was ever a time when it should have happened, it was on 911 in my opinion.

Those claiming "it's pareidolia" have only one argument to stand on:

Demonic apparitions have not been proven to be real so therefore anytime someone claims to see one it must be pareidolia.

The generic form of that argument goes like this:

If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

That's called "Argument from ignorance."
en.wikipedia.org...

I'll admit that my argument for believing that demonic apparitions probably appeared in the smoke and clouds on 911 is weak. I don't believe my argument is fallacious because I'm not claiming to be espousing absolute truth.

However, the people claiming "it's pareidolia" are relying on a fallacious argument and they are claiming to be espousing absolute truth.

Claiming "it's pareidolia" is just as invalid as claiming it's not!

Depends on what you mean by demonic apperitions....

If you mean the shape of modern day (anchient Christians had totally different guesses of what a demon would look like, in fact every generation or so our opinion on what looks demonic changes) demon appeared in the smoke. Then absolutely. Hell I would even say it could be proven.

If your saying the modern demonic figures were actually the supernatural manifestations of the Christian anti deity, that's a whole different story. A story that would mean all history and science is a in a vast conspiracy to discredit Christianity.

Which is just silly when you actually think about what it would take to falsify and bribe all the needed individuals.

a reply to: Profusion

Why would a demon magically project his face into the smoke??? Was it so that just maybe someone might see it and get all spooked by it??? Is there some extra points in hell if you somehow sign your evil deed in that way???

Let's say there is some extra points then. Why then would they make it so difficult to see??? Why not manifext a big demon in the flames for 5 minutes or something and really put on a show???

Or does it make more sense that it's just smoke and we see faces in all kinds of stuff because we are made to see faces and see certain patterns.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Profusion

Why would a demon magically project his face into the smoke??? Was it so that just maybe someone might see it and get all spooked by it??? Is there some extra points in hell if you somehow sign your evil deed in that way???

Let's say there is some extra points then. Why then would they make it so difficult to see??? Why not manifext a big demon in the flames for 5 minutes or something and really put on a show???

Or does it make more sense that it's just smoke and we see faces in all kinds of stuff because we are made to see faces and see certain patterns.

Nope, definatly just some horrible ineffective demons!!

:p

a reply to: Profusion

When I was a kid and even now, I used to look at the clouds and see all kinds of things! Angels were my favorite thing, I even saw every character from Disneyland flying in the sky! I have seen what looked like my vision of the Devil before. I have seen winged monkeys and giraffes and tigers and bats!

We see what we want to see, heck as for 9/11 we think we saw 2 planes fly into buildings and that 3 buildings designed to withstand major catastrophes, fall in seconds. I am with you though, that was some demonic BS that happened that day, if I really try hard I can see something manifest in the smoke filled destruction of that day, what to call it and what it was is left entirely up to the viewer.

So...if I see a cloud that looks suspiciously like Peter Pan, does that mean Neverland is real? I've seen plenty of them that look like Mickey Mouse, so I should assume he's real,too?

We seek to put a predictable order, outcome & image to most things, we desire familiarity. Especially in randomness. Pareidolia is an extension of that. A cloud is just a cloud, and a column of smoke is just a column of smoke.

a reply to: Profusion

You could also spout some utter tripe and tell the doubters that they are deluded for *not* seeing what you see.


I see a unicorn.You don't see it?You fool!It's a clear sign of unicorn possession!

I'm sure your demons have better things to do than appear faintly in a cloud of smoke.

a reply to: Profusion

2 things to stand on actually.

The second is that there's no such thing as demons.

a reply to: Profusion

We must remember, that those videos, that we all saw, might actually be a form of propaganda, to make it look more evil and dangerous, to magnify the fear factor, of those who saw them.

They look too hollywood to me, you catch my drift?

You are supposed too see death and skulls.

I'm British and I saw only the face of Diana princess of wales in the smoke..crying.
God bless her and all who sailed in her!!.

Just no Demons had nothing to do with that day just the failings of mankind, do not attempt to blame something when it was us mankind and we have to understand the whys and hows to attempt to stop doing this to each other not blaming mythical beings.

a reply to: Profusion

Nice thread but we claim pareidolia because it is the most likely explanation. Neither of us have evidence either way.

You're kind of criticising the naysayer but at the same time making the same error yourself:

2. Demonic apparitions probably appeared along with the corresponding demonic activity on that day. I've seen enough evidence to convince me that it's possible and if there was ever a time when it should have happened, it was on 911 in my opinion.

Where is said evidence?

See what I'm saying? I know you're suggesting both arguments are invalid - but surely we must go with a known phenomena which most people have evidence of and experience of - rather than an assumption which pulls us into the realms of fantasy?

a reply to: Profusion
I agree that pareidolia is an over used explanation, but the alternative is to give into our baser instincts and fear of everything we don't immediately understand. This is how our growth as a species has been stunted...
"Superstition ain't the way." Stevie Wonder

a reply to: Profusion

It's pareidolia, and no it isn't an invalid argument.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Profusion

It's pareidolia, and no it isn't an invalid argument.

So then the poster who has seen Mickey Mouse has a valid argument that Mickey is real and there is a vast conspiracy to keep him a secret?



Tho Christianity has a far older paper trail. Mickey has quite a bit of source material! :p