world-views and agendas

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure that's it, Dominic. As you say, parapsychologists have their biases as do we all - but the work speaks for itself. I think it is the work that is considered not to be sufficiently convincing rather than the mere assumption that the parapsychologist is biased against materialism or atheists.
 
I just wish I could see more people in the paranormal community who didn't have an obvious prejudice against materialism. I'd love to hear someone say, "Yeah, those anarchists and marxists have a really nice ethical system that concentrates on this life and this world rather than all that pie in the sky bullshit, but by the way, the scientific evidence seems to show that consciousness continues after death, and it looks like remote viewing is real too." But sadly we don't see much of this.
Why would someone need to say that?
You're not quite getting my point here. I agree that mainstream skeptics and others also caricature people from other groups. We all do this. Tribalism is just part of human nature.

The point at issue here is whether paranormal believers have the PARTICULAR prejudice/agenda against atheism/materialism that I believe Alex has. If they do, then it's understandable that people should be suspicious about their work. If, for example, most people in the NDE research community believe that ultimate meaning and value in life are impossible unless there's an afterlife, then that will quite understandably make people suspicious of their work.
But the point is that you don't really have a point. Your arguments aren't being sorted, and you're throwing conjecture around like it's going out of style. If you want to make a point, then have something of substance first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCC
Why would someone need to say that?

But the point is that you don't really have a point. Your arguments aren't being sorted, and you're throwing conjecture around like it's going out of style. If you want to make a point, then have something of substance first.

I made it clear from the start that I simply have my suspicions about people in the paranormal community, based on the people I've met, the books I've read and the interviews I've listened to. It could be that I'm completely wrong, and that there's actually a lot of diversity there, with many people who think atheism/materialism is perfectly consistent with a life that's full of meaning, purpose, freedom, love and compassion, even though it turns out that this world view is empirically false.

There might be a worry here, though, that my theory is unfalsifiable. If Alex says he doesn't have a prejudice against atheism/materialism, then I can just say that it doesn't matter what he says since it's obvious that deep down he does. My response to this is that Alex has already said so many things that show his prejudice against atheism/materialism that it's just too late for him to deny it now. The damage is already done in his case. At the very least, we would have to say, "He once had a prejudice against atheism/materialism." I don't see how anyone who's listened to every episode of Skeptico could deny this.

And why do I call it a prejudice rather than an intellectual disagreement? Well, because nobody ever gives any evidence to show that atheists/materialists are, or have been, more likely to support or enjoy consumerism, capitalism, technology or war. And likewise, no philosophical arguments are given to show exactly why or how a meaningful and valuable life requires a God and an afterlife. These are not carefully thought out positions.
 
Last edited:
You're not quite getting my point here. I agree that mainstream skeptics and others also caricature people from other groups. We all do this. Tribalism is just part of human nature.

The point at issue here is whether paranormal believers have the PARTICULAR prejudice/agenda against atheism/materialism that I believe Alex has. If they do, then it's understandable that people should be suspicious about their work. If, for example, most people in the NDE research community believe that ultimate meaning and value in life are impossible unless there's an afterlife, then that will quite understandably make people suspicious of their work.

No... I get your point exactly. You are practising Rule #3 of Nuclear Physicist Stanton Friedman's "4 major rules employed by debunkers".

"3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier."

Your trying to discredit Alex who is a "proponent" by saying he has an agenda against Atheism/Materialism... and so anything he says cannot be trusted. You are focussing on him because he has the loudest voice by having a podcast that reaches people.... which makes him the enemy right? Just like Rupert Sheldrake is often attacked and discredited.

Problem is that's you showed your hand a few posts up by letting this slip.

DominicBunnell said:
I'm saying I suspect that many, perhaps most, paranormal believers have a prejudice against atheism/materialism

Most paranormal believers? LOL really. This isn't about Alex, it's about discrediting anyone that is a "paranormal believer". As Stanton says.... Debunk Rule #3. Alex is just the head on the snake that you are hoping you can cut off.. and watch the rest of the body die.

See this isn't your average "love and light New ager" forum. Most of us have seen it all over the years... so when a new Skeptic comes in doing the same tactic that every other skeptic has tried in the past you can pick it a mile away. In fact just about every "Proponent" in here was a Skeptic at one point and most still remain skeptical on certain aspects. My entire reason for ever becoming a "Proponent" in the first place is because I was so highly skeptical that I thought it was completely ridiculous to even entertain PSI. I used to argue against it... difference is I like to argue by reading up on the subject I am arguing about and using facts... and that's when my skepticism began to unravel.

Some of us were even Materialists before we starting changing our minds on the view of the world. I'm sure we don't think we had a sudden personality change where we went from nasty people to nice people as a result of studying something and changing an opinon.

It was that Skepticism though that had me talking to other Skeptics and realising that their Skepticism wasn't the same as mine... and their arguments for PSI not being real such as 'cold reading' were not as "concrete" as they used to proclaim to everyone. Ironically it was from befriending these Skeptics that I actually started trying to find answers for myself and realised the Skepticism I was encountering was nothing more than idealogical religion pushing by people that were too proud or egotistical to admit they may have been wrong and were misreading the data either intentionally or unintentionally.

Instead of attacking the person... attack the data.
 
No... I get your point exactly. You are practising Rule #3 of Nuclear Physicist Stanton Friedman's "4 major rules employed by debunkers".

"3. If one can’t attack the data, attack the people. It is easier."

Your trying to discredit Alex who is a "proponent" by saying he has an agenda against Atheism/Materialism... and so anything he says cannot be trusted. You are focussing on him because he has the loudest voice by having a podcast that reaches people.... which makes him the enemy right? Just like Rupert Sheldrake is often attacked and discredited.

Problem is that's you showed your hand a few posts up by letting this slip.



Most paranormal believers? LOL really. This isn't about Alex, it's about discrediting anyone that is a "paranormal believer". As Stanton says.... Debunk Rule #3. Alex is just the head on the snake that you are hoping you can cut off.. and watch the rest of the body die.

See this isn't your average "love and light New ager" forum. Most of us have seen it all over the years... so when a new Skeptic comes in doing the same tactic that every other skeptic has tried in the past you can pick it a mile away. In fact just about every "Proponent" in here was a Skeptic at one point and most still remain skeptical on certain aspects. My entire reason for ever becoming a "Proponent" in the first place is because I was so highly skeptical that I thought it was completely ridiculous to even entertain PSI. I used to argue against it... difference is I like to argue by reading up on the subject I am arguing about and using facts... and that's when my skepticism began to unravel.

Some of us were even Materialists before we starting changing our minds on the view of the world. I'm sure we don't think we had a sudden personality change where we went from nasty people to nice people as a result of studying something and changing an opinon.

It was that Skepticism though that had me talking to other Skeptics and realising that their Skepticism wasn't the same as mine... and their arguments for PSI not being real such as 'cold reading' were not as "concrete" as they used to proclaim to everyone. Ironically it was from befriending these Skeptics that I actually started trying to find answers for myself and realised the Skepticism I was encountering was nothing more than idealogical religion pushing by people that were too proud or egotistical to admit they may have been wrong and were misreading the data either intentionally or unintentionally.

Instead of attacking the person... attack the data.


I was a UFO believer in my teens, and something like a hardcore skeptic in my 20s. Now, I can see that there are a big problems with both the mainstream skeptical position and the position of the paranormal believer. Alex has done everybody a service by revealing just how arrogant and ignorant many skeptics are on these issues, and Skeptico has been one of my favourite shows for years now.

Still, I have told you all why I think Alex has a prejudice against atheism/materialism, and if you disagree with me on this, then you need to explain why Alex has made so many seemingly stupid remarks about the connection between philosophical materialism and militarism/consumerism/capitalism and why he continues to claim without argument that life is meaningless on atheism.

And come on, don't bring Stanton Friedman into this!
 
There might be a worry here, though, that my theory is unfalsifiable. If Alex says he doesn't have a prejudice against atheism/materialism, then I can just say that it doesn't matter what he says since it's obvious that deep down he does. My response to this is that Alex has already said so many things that show his prejudice against atheism/materialism that it's just too late for him to deny it now. The damage is already done in his case. At the very least, we would have to say, "He once had a prejudice against atheism/materialism." I don't see how anyone who's listened to every episode of Skeptico could deny this.
.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

To be read as: There may be worry here that my theory is unfalsifiable. My response to this is that my theory can't be wrong, therefore, it can't be falsified.
 
Hahahahahahahahahaha!

To be read as: There may be worry here that my theory is unfalsifiable. My response to this is that my theory can't be wrong, therefore, it can't be falsified.

But if you want to get hypothetical about it, here are a couple of ways it could be falsified:

1. Alex could show that he really does have good evidence and good reasons for thinking that there's a close connection between atheism/materialism and consumerism/capitalism/war/technology worship. He could show that this opinion of his is actually well thought out and not just a prejudice. Also, he could give philosophical arguments explaining exactly why life is meaningless on atheism and why on this world view we might as well just kill ourselves.

2. He could show that all those times he said silly things about atheism/materialism on Skeptico he was just joking, or just saying stupid things because one of his friends dared him to do so, or whatever.

So, you see, it is POSSIBLE that Alex doesn't (or didn't) have a prejudice against atheism/materialism, and I could imagine ways that he could convince me I'm wrong, but I don't think any of this is very likely to happen.
 
If I disgusted some modern materialistic tendency would be for what follows.

1. Most scientists dismiss psi and the afterlife when they hardly know parapsychology and psychic research.

2. When a neurological experiment arises, as Libet's experiments, many people rush to draw materialistic conclusions when these conclusions are only interpretations, and when a parapsychological experiment arises, as Bem's experiments, many people get stuck without drawing conclusions and hoping to bring out some experimental defect.

3. The psychic evidence of an afterlife is good and could be comforting against pathological attitude of Western society about hide death and associated with it.

So I find good reason to be disgusted by some current tendencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MCC
1. Alex could show that he really does have good evidence and good reasons for thinking that there's a close connection between atheism/materialism and consumerism/capitalism/war/technology worship. He could show that this opinion of his is actually well thought out and not just a prejudice. Also, he could give philosophical arguments explaining exactly why life is meaningless on atheism and why on this world view we might as well just kill ourselves.

Alex doesn't have to do any of that. You're the one stating the claim that Alex hates atheism. You're the one required to demonstrate sufficient evidence. Thus far, most people who are following in on this conversation don't believe you have done so.

2. He could show that all those times he said silly things about atheism/materialism on Skeptico he was just joking, or just saying stupid things because one of his friends dared him to do so, or whatever.

Again, your arguments are flimsy here. You haven't proven those things to be a contributing factor to a 'hate of materialism'. Just because materialism could lead to consumerism doesn't mean that Alex hates it.

It would be my recommendation to message him and ask him to share his input on this thread.
 
I didn't say that. The problem, really, is the way we do research in a capitalist society. No funding for wild ideas, only things that increase the bottom line. It's interesting to note that the Yucatan crater which was the 'smoking gun' for the impact/extinction theory, was ALSO found as a result of oil exploration, just like the induction zones in the Atlantic.
Who's funding the string theorists?

~~ Paul
 
Who's funding the string theorists?

~~ Paul
Touché. But while I will grant you the larger point, I also remind you that my criticism involved empirical science, not the hypothetical-non-falsifiable-meta-theory-of-everything mathemadness that just so happens to be wildly supported by every materialist in any position of authority around the world. Anyway, the Higgs mass will probably end their funding soon, . . . so, big deal.
 
Last edited:
Touché. But while I will grant you the larger point, I also remind you that my criticism involved empirical science, not the hypothetical-non-falsifiable-meta-theory-of-everything mathemadness that just so happens to be wildly supported by every materialist in any position of authority around the world. Anyway, the Higgs mass will probably end their funding soon, . . . so, big deal.
Are you saying that every materialist thinks spending time on string theory is a good idea? I don't think so.

Who's funding the quantum computer researchers?

Perhaps the distinction you're trying to make is between applied research and theoretical research. Meanwhile, of course, scientists are just people and can be closed-minded, nasty, and rude.

~~ Paul
 
The key point is, paranormal believers find it very difficult to admit that there are good honest atheists/materialists out there who just don't believe in the paranormal, and so there is a tendency to demonize the other side and try to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories to explain why these guys won't accept the evidence.
I suppose - like just about anything - there are people who fit what you claim. However if so they are minority. However your use of the term "paranormal" doesn't help your case. Much of the paranormal is materialist. Most people who have the range to know that materialism is a subset are clear that most materialist believers are being honest about how they perceive things.

The arguments about those materialist believers who refuse to accept the evidence are also valid. That's obvious. The whole silly phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" grew out of that refusal. It's a phrase to sum up . since we are staunch believers in materialism, we will not apply the same "scientific" standards to things beyond it.
 
The arguments about those materialist believers who refuse to accept the evidence are also valid. That's obvious. The whole silly phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" grew out of that refusal. It's a phrase to sum up .

Where in the world are you getting that from?
Sagan first said it here, before the 2 minute mark:
 
Where in the world are you getting that from?
Sagan first said it here, before the 2 minute mark:

Wikipedia (re Sagan):
one of his most famous quotations, in Cosmos, was, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"[63] (called the "Sagan Standard" by some[64]). This was based on a nearly identical statement by fellow founder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, Marcello Truzzi, "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."[65][66] This idea had been earlier aphorized in Théodore Flournoy's work From India to the Planet Mars (1899) from a longer quote by Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827), a French mathematician and astronomer, as the Principle of Laplace: "The weight of the evidence should be proportioned to the strangeness of the facts."[67]

And whoever said it first is irrelevant. The point is the beliefs that motivate that perspective.
 
If whoever in the 1700's first articulated the concept with different wording is irrelevant, why quote wikipedia?

The point is the beliefs that motivate that perspective.

Yes, and in the case of the Sagan quote, stuff like knowledge about sleep paralysis can change people's beliefs about their experiences, such as their perspective on seeming to have been attacked by some sort of demon or alien in the night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top