2018-03-10, 09:56 PM
(2018-03-10, 03:57 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It is a response to the - you don't take us seriously outcry I here from persons whom believe in the paranormal. Some people seem to want to be legitimately recognized by the scientific establishment. And for that to happen there must be empirical evidence. If you or anyone really thinks evidence is just belief, then what is belief without evidence?
You sound like you're using the term "evidence" as if it is an intrinsic property that is objectively a part of some phenomena. Which it isn't. Evidence is the label that someone gives to one or more observed effects that they believe to be related in some specific way to another effect or group of effects. However since a person has no actual proof that such a relationship exists it is always possible for another person to disbelieve the "evidence" on that, very logical, basis. Therefore, what is and is not considered evidence by a person is completely based on their own desires, what they want or don't want to be true. It is possible for them to see the relationship, but still come to a radically different conclusion as to why that relationship exists, and there's no logical way to disprove them. Since they are just choosing to believe or not believe that certain relationships are how others claim they are.
If this were not true you wouldn't have so much debate weven in mainstream science about who's theories on what are or are not true especially when all have some "evidence" to back them up. This gets far more into a the concepts of evidence formatting. Something I refer to as the "Coffee House Problem" where you imagine two people having a private conversation over coffee, no other witnesses. They then report that they had such a conversation to others.
The problem is that it is irrational to believe or disbelieve the claim, since the people have no real evidence that the conversation took or didn't take place. There is nothing the two people can provide that proves the conversation to others. Even if they had transcripts, even if they had video evidence, nothing proves it 100% since everything can be faked via another thing I call the "Provers Paradox" which states that all mediums of proof are also mediums of hoaxes. Example, two identical videos, one captured, one faked using special computer software, both displaying the exact same thing, it is impossible to tell which is real and which is fake. Making the question meaningless.
The two people can know they are telling the truth, but there is no way to ever prove it to others, all formats they could use could also be forged. Their own senses may not even be correct. Thus only emotional factors can be used to pick a side and decide what is and is not evidence of what. Meaning, if more people happen to be on one side than the other, then that's what's true. Thus what is and is not "true" in a society is determined by power, not logic. The scientific establishment, therefore, does not take people seriously not because of lack of "evidence" but lack of "theories that fit their desires." and the only reason anyone wants the establishment to take them seriously is because the establishment has power.
In many cases the establishment is right, particularly when it come to moralistic theories about "how we should live", the likes of which can be, quite easily, logically disproven without the need for, and despite the presence of, "evidence" for them. Things like life being intrinsically about "love", something that lacks the ability to be objective defined. Or the obligation of someone to obey a soul contract they don't remember making let alone questions about whether it might've been made under duress, coercion, or outright forged by someone else. Same goes for obedience to one or more deities for any reason, the question of whether or not they created anything is irrelevant.
If someone does not want to be subjugated under a diety, do not wish to obey a contract they don't even think is valid, defines love differently than someone else, or whatever other moralistic theoretical framework you can think of, chances are they will disbelieve that there is any evidence of such a theory at all and it will be impossible to convince them otherwise.
These are the things that cause the scientific establishment to dismiss parapsychology and all the evidence it has found outright. The idea of objective morality has already been long shown to be a logical fallacy and thus anything based on it is also false. Many proofs exist for people to find in places like youtube and the like if people are interested. The rejection by mainstream science is thus very statistically sound, if the majority of what they see coming out of supporters of parapsychology is stuff that has already been logically disproven, then it is likely that whatever evidence these people claim to have is probably also logically unsound in its conclusions. It's still just a belief on behalf of the establishment, but that's where it's coming from. If the spiritualists want to be taken seriously they should start by getting rid of all those ideas in their ranks and clean up the optics of parapsychology to appear just as serious as mainstream science. Then it will be taken more seriously by them. If the mainstream continues to see supporters acting like their feelings objectively matter, they will continue to not take you, or any of the evidence, seriously.