from Mordred

Linda, hi there.

Originally Posted By: LindaLouAnecdotal evidence . . . it's developed a bad name. It is, of course, fraught with difficulties. People might be hallucinating, they might be mistaken, they might remember incorrectly what they actually saw or heard. And even an entire group of people who insist they all saw, e.g. a statue of Mary weep blood, could be hallucinating or wrong about what it was they saw.

I understand what you mean. Much like conspiracy theories earning a bad name. It's probably a lot easier to launch a conspiracy when most of the world will think you're a quack for exposing them. But I think it's a sheer case of numbers. Most instances of ghost sightings are false claims (be they due to delusions or hoaxes) just as most conspiracy theories are false claims. Because of this, any real claims which come into existence already have an uphill battle. When and if it happens to me I'd like to think I would steer my anger in the direction of the hoaxers and the deluded before I get angry for people not believing me.

Quote:People also tend to claim that anecdotal evidence is the only evidence we have for certain "paranormal" phenomena, which is not true. There have been many studies done on the topic of human consciousness, ESP, telekinesis, that kind of thing. The Ganzfeld experiments are a good example. The usual CSICOP crowd have tried very hard to debunk these and like to fall back on their favourite card, not randomized well enough. However, if you look at the claims and counter-claims, you will see that no one has been able to poke a big hole in the findings of the experiments (that human telepathy exists).

I'll check it out. Admittedly it's something I know nothing about. Do feel free to drop me the other link you mentioned.

Quote:The problem with not accepting the possibility of any "paranormal" phenomena until you experience them yourself is that many people do not experience them, and it does seem that it requires a degree of open-mindedness at the outset in order to do so -- maybe it helps a person have a receptive mental state. Is it then OK to ignore everyone else's experiences and say there's nothing worth studying because you personally have not had similar experiences yourself?

I understand what you mean. Often times it's clear who the basket cases are when claiming alien visitations, bigfoot sightings and so on just by watching them during their interviews. Then when someone completely rational and level-headed shows up with a similar claim it does indeed make one want to consider it.

But that's all I can do is consider. I cannot say "Yes, you are right. I believe you 100%." How can I? Anger and vehemence permeates the world of belief because nobody wants to be told they are wrong. If someone close to me told me (in person) a story like the one above I would have a hard time saying I think they are wrong or I think it was something else which is perfectly and scientifically explainable. The reason being, I don't want to insult them or hurt their feelings. But just as doubts that they are wrong linger in my head, doubts that they are right will also be there too. And I think that's the most open minded approach. For me to blindly accept someone's claims that they were abducted by aliens, regardless of how rational a person they may be, would be as closed minded as blindly denying them.