Page 3 • Fictional questions for the skeptical • Non-Gaming • General Non-gaming • Eurogamer.net

CaptainBinky 12 Apr 2011 12:33:02 2,243 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

MetalDog wrote:@CaptainBinky
I do wonder though if the power of belief in things being a certain way could override the flight or fight response in extreme cases.

I don't know. Perhaps it would need to be creepier for me to run (given that I'd be pretty confident there was a rational explanation and therefore would be curious what that was) than someone who believed that ghosts were a very real thing.

But then at the same time, it only tends to be people who believe in angels who ever seem to see angels. I've never encountered anything supernatural and yet those who believe strongly in this stuff seem to encounter things all the time. If supernatural events are as commonplace as anecdotal 'evidence' would suggest then why in 33 years have I seen exactly nothing? Of course the usual explanation is you need to be "open" to these things, but that just sounds like a cop-out to me. Why would ghosts discriminate?

Load_2.0 12 Apr 2011 12:37:32 33,582 posts
Seen 12 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago

MetalDog wrote:
I'm not out to persuade anyone of anything, or start an argument.

The first time this sentance has been used on this fourm.

For me it would need to be an 8 or above. Unfortunately at the point I would genuinely assume I had been drugged or was having a mental breakdown.

Recurring "3-4" incidents in my favour however might just do it. I.e ghostly writing on the wall telling me where and when to gamble and those bets coming in at longshots for say a year?..... yeah that might work.

Bleeding walls? That means I have gone mental.

L42yB 12 Apr 2011 12:42:16 1,672 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 16 years ago

Tiger_Walts wrote:
new form of land yacht (ground driven prop assisted) that travels faster than the wind whilst going directly downwind still has people trying to disprove it.

That was interesting. But science must be sceptical. If people hadn't been so sceptical he never would have built it. And nothing is true until you can demonstrate it repeatedly.

And I honestly don't think I would run from a "ghost". I would be far too curious to know what it really was.

bzzct 12 Apr 2011 12:44:23 2,518 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

MetalDog wrote:
I am curious as to what your reaction would be to extremely hard to explain events.

I would not understand them. I'm quite happy to accept there are things I don't understand - being so desperate to explain things that when there is no obvious explanation one makes something up is not an attractive situation to me.

When I see something like this, I think WTF did people think hundreds/thousands of years ago when they saw this shit?! I'm happy to accept it would have been impossible for them to have understood what it was, and so I don't doubt there's countless stuff it's impossible for me/us to understand now.

MetalDog 12 Apr 2011 12:44:27 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

I've done a lot of reading on the subject over the years and yes, people tend to see things that correspond with their cultural or personal expectations. I don't think this automatically invalidates that they saw /something/ (for whatever reason), but it's an undeniable trend. There are also some images that consistently cross cultures and they're quite interesting just for that fact alone.

As for why some people never see anything - that's a bit more of a puzzler to me. I've been in situations where several people and animals have all reacted to a noise, for instance, but not everyone has heard it, despite the volume. It doesn't mean the noise was paranormal, but it's interesting that it consistently didn't register with the same people on each occurrence. I don't think it's as simple as not being 'open' to experiences - that's a lazy-ass explanation for a lot of woo imo.

bzzct 12 Apr 2011 12:50:34 2,518 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

Also, I hate the use of the word "sceptic" in this sense. It implies whatever the topic at hand (ghosts etc. in this case) is one which is ostensibly true/valid, but which some individuals doubt.

It's like saying someone is "sceptical" that they're actually a lizard in a human costume. I'm not sceptical of that, I've never had any reason to countenance it in the first place. I'm "sceptical" of whether Cardiff will get promotion to the Premier League.

MetalDog 12 Apr 2011 12:52:26 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

That's just the emotional baggage around the word, though. Same as my previous mention of 'rational' implying 'irrational'.

Short of coming up with completely new words for the sliding scale stances, I'm not sure how to get around it.

disusedgenius 12 Apr 2011 12:52:27 10,677 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago

It's a pretty accurate use of the word tbh. I think you're looking for a science vs religion thread or something.

bzzct 12 Apr 2011 12:54:04 2,518 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

It's not to do with emotional baggage attached to the word, and it's not a pretty accurate use: it's a twisted version of what it means (I was anal enough to OED it to corroborate the thought).

CaptainBinky 12 Apr 2011 12:59:21 2,243 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

MetalDog wrote:
I've done a lot of reading on the subject over the years and yes, people tend to see things that correspond with their cultural or personal expectations. I don't think this automatically invalidates that they saw /something/ (for whatever reason), but it's an undeniable trend.

It doesn't automatically invalidate what they saw, no, but it's not far off

MetalDog wrote:
As for why some people never see anything - that's a bit more of a puzzler to me. I've been in situations where several people and animals have all reacted to a noise, for instance, but not everyone has heard it, despite the volume. It doesn't mean the noise was paranormal, but it's interesting that it consistently didn't register with the same people on each occurrence.

That's not a puzzler to me at all. Countless times has somebody said something to me perfectly loudly and clearly which I have utterly failed to hear because I was absorbed in something. That some people didn't hear something is perfectly normal and to be expected. That it was the same people who didn't hear it probably just means that those are the people who get more easily self=absorbed or distracted and are generally less observant.

disusedgenius 12 Apr 2011 13:01:22 10,677 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago

Try reading Bertrand Russell's 'Sceptical Essays' instead. It's not necessarily about scientific process or anything, it's more of a description of a mindset.

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:20:52

Isn't the 'earth is flat' thing mostly bullshit anyway? That most educated people thought the world was round, it was just a mass of crackpots that thought otherwise?

CaptainBinky 12 Apr 2011 13:21:43 2,243 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 17 years ago

Brappo wrote:
Basically, we don't know very much at all and there are a great many things that we simply don't have the answers to.

While this is true, that doesn't mean that we should take claims about fairies and elves and leprechauns seriously. You still require more than anecdotal evidence to have a case.

bzzct 12 Apr 2011 13:22:37 2,518 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

Brappo wrote:
People that think that the scientific knowledge we have today can answer all questions are fucking idiots. During the "earth is flat" days they thought they had it all figured out too. Basically, we don't know very much at all and there are a great amny things that we simply don't have the answers to.

That's a remarkably strongly worded rebuttal considering it's rebutting something no-one's said O_o.

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:24:50

bzzct wrote:

Brappo wrote:
People that think that the scientific knowledge we have today can answer all questions are fucking idiots. During the "earth is flat" days they thought they had it all figured out too. Basically, we don't know very much at all and there are a great amny things that we simply don't have the answers to.
That's a remarkably strongly worded rebuttal considering it's rebutting something no-one's said O_o.

Exactly what I was thinking. I thought I had missed a post or two in this thread...

MetalDog 12 Apr 2011 13:25:19 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Scepticism is a very valuable tool in our 'what the hell is going on' toolbox. Nine times out of ten, the non-sceptic explanation leapt to is the wrong one, you have try to find alternatives where possible, if only to confirm the weird as genuinely weird, I reckon.

@captainbinky - there was, as I said a great deal of consistency about the 'deafness' - I did try my best to account for distraction being the cause, but it was hardly lab conditions, alas. If I ever find a piece of reliably repeatable weirdness I'll ask for recruits here to poke at it though, for sure =)

bzzct 12 Apr 2011 13:29:47 2,518 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years ago

He didn't just say distraction - he's talking about the evident disparity between different people's awareness of the general world around them at any give time. Take the same group of people to a train station and you'll find certain ones will repeatedly fail to notice the sporadic tannoy announcements. How self-absorbed someone is, for want of a better phrase - but meaning something more neutral and less judgmental than that sounds.

MetalDog 12 Apr 2011 13:32:52 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

Yes, but when you have an ongoing noise and you ask them 'can you hear that?' and they say 'no', it's not distraction or absorption. Assume actual hearing problems if you prefer.

chopsen 12 Apr 2011 13:34:38 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

Brappo wrote:
People that think that the scientific knowledge we have today can answer all questions are fucking idiots. During the "earth is flat" days they thought they had it all figured out too. Basically, we don't know very much at all and there are a great amny things that we simply don't have the answers to.

The "earth is flat days" was actually just propaganda to support the idea of progressive scientific knowledge from (I think) the Victorian age, about how advanced we'd become, and how people in the past were simpletons.

I actually have a problem with the term "paranormal" as it happens. I don't think it's a particularly useful term, as it is used to describe stuff with is outside of current scientific explanation. By that definition, all science is the study of the paranormal! For example, cosmology is a paranormal belief system as nobody can explain the shape of the universe completely given current science theory.

/tangent mode off

Re the OP: I would assume whatever happens has an explanation. Just because I can't explain it doesn't mean it's not a a valid experience. What I would question would be my perception of reality. If other apparently sane people experienced exactly the same thing, I would find it very interesting, and in the examples you gave probably terrifying.

chopsen 12 Apr 2011 13:37:52 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

bzzct wrote:
He didn't just say distraction - he's talking about the evident disparity between different people's awareness of the general world around them at any give time. Take the same group of people to a train station and you'll find certain ones will repeatedly fail to notice the sporadic tannoy announcements. How self-absorbed someone is, for want of a better phrase - but meaning something more neutral and less judgmental than that sounds.

Science!

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:41:23

If you think about it "flat earth" is scientific, they observed flat earth around them and couldnt imagine a round earth because they didnt know about gravity.

MetalDog 12 Apr 2011 13:43:15 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

You can see the curvature of the earth if you stand on a hill and have a reasonably clear view. Flat Earth was never a wildly held view for fairly obvious reasons.

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:46:37

Yeah, but I thought it was a widely held view?

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:47:07

MetalDog wrote:
You can see the curvature of the earth if you stand on a hill and have a reasonably clear view. Flat Earth was never a wildly held view for fairly obvious reasons.

What? I have a map of earth right here and it's very much flat!

chopsen 12 Apr 2011 13:51:38 21,958 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 16 years ago

muttler wrote:
Yeah, but I thought it was a widely held view?

Nope.

MetalDog 12 Apr 2011 13:55:34 24,076 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years ago

I think it's pretty common for the current generation to believe that the previous generations were a lot more stupid than they actually were. That and the belief that progress is an ever upward march, rather than the two steps forward, one step back affair it's so often been.

In fact that's a lot of the rationale behind the whole 'How did they build the pyramids/batteries/gold plating back then? Must have been aliens!' mindset, I think.

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:57:33

Chopsen wrote:

muttler wrote:
Yeah, but I thought it was a widely held view?

Nope.

Oh. I was taught in history that people thought the earth was flat, that stars were lamps in the sky and if you sailed to the end of the world you would fall off the end. Also that everyone laughed at Colombus when he said the world was round, which was why he set off to circumnavigate the globe.

Deleted user 12 April 2011 13:57:49

I am chopped liver.

>

Fictional questions for the skeptical • Page 3