I’ve backed up with evidence the general trend I see in this community in the comment section of another one of Phil’s posts, the one were you confirmed that impression and aptly asked me why I wouldn’t “piss off” elsewhere.

I believe my full quote was along the lines of ‘Why don’t you piss off to 9/11 consipracy board.’ I thought it’d be your natural habitat. A place where individuals refuse to look facts in the face and spin data until it fits whatever they’re selling.

So now it’s up to you to not be a hypocrit and go back up your impression that the trend in the communities you take issue with is indeed that it’s mostly liars and nutters, and to an extent that it justifies making that assumption safely about the whole community. I’m waiting.

the communities I take issue with are creationists, anti-vaxxers, aids denialists, ufologists, conspiracy nuts and others like you who refuse to support their positions with any evidence and then cry foul when they get called out. If you want to defend these people by all means do so but you’re only sinking further into the whole you dug for yourself.

Besides – you ask me to just do the research myself, because I’m complaining about research not being done as I like it. How is that different from asking Phil to do the same? Still wanna use the word hypocrit, be my guest.

There’s no comparison between what you said

‘And would you not expect that person to shut up or contribute someting other than complaints ?”

and what I’m saying. Here you are telling Phil and skeptics like me to help find the evidence. (Notice how you say ‘contribute something then complaints’) I’m telling you to go find it yourself. There’s a clear difference.

I think it’s also worth reposting what you wrote that began this exchange.

“Move them out of the fringes, start up some large scale studies, and do away with it all. What are you so afraid o? To fail, because that would upset your small, comfortable universe? Or to succeed, and then nothing left for you to scoff at to make yourselves feel better?”

like why you introduced the term “supernatural”, or how you define it, or how by your definition this would make ghosts supernatural

I’m sorry but did you read the Blog post we’re all commenting on? Notice how it is explicitly about the supernatural?

But let’s say the case you seem to be expecting comes up, and I can’t answer your questions with decent examples…would that not take all wind out of your sails when you claim sufficient investigation of paranormal phenomena exists to already discount them ?

Because the sum of human experiences isn’t defined by a few organisations I can still make the claim ‘Despite looking nothing has been found’. It’s a win/win for me.

Aw come on, don’t be so shy and evasive. After all, if you wanna join the military…man up and define the terms you deem worthy to be introduced to the discussion.

dictionary.com being a couple clicks away to much trouble for you, is it?

“No, I couldn’t. I can’t find anything to back up any rational explanation for your beliefs, other than the usual crank need to feel like you’re an outsider exploring esoteric knowledge that “bad ol’ science” refuses to acknowledge.”

No offense, but you’re making a fool of yourself too, at least to any impartial reader of this exchange. I kinda doubt that. You keep referring to a belief of mine. You’ve shown that you can quote me – so why, after repeatedly being asked to do so, are you still failing to quote this belief of mine ?

I guess you can’t read, either. The quote of mine you used quite clearly states I can’t find any rational explanation for your (unstated) beliefs. I simply don’t know what they are. You claim to be interested in science, yet you want to investigate ghosts. Why not investigate Santa Claus? Millions of people have “seen” him! Why aren’t you ragging on scientists for ignoring this huge potential area of investigation? What are your motivations? I don’t know. I said I don’t know. Repeatedly.

Strike one.
.
I never claimed their work or methods were on shaky ground.

Yes you did. January 15, 7:24 am: “how can the model assuming that rule out alternative ones, when it rests on such shaky ground” Hypothesizing a “model” and testing it is the work of science. Therefore you are either ignorant of science or you are a liar.

Strike two.
.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how the concept of ghosts, as it is commonly understood, if true, would violate the laws of nature, and which ones specifically.

Well, for starters, the law of gravity, given that the “concept of ghosts” includes their ability to float about willy-nilly with no regard for gravity. Or the physics of gaseous bodies, since their ethereal bodies are “commonly understood” to be vaporous, yet they don’t dissipate or expand to fill the volumes that enclose them. And let’s see…how about acoustics? How does a vaporous being produce such clear sound when there’s nothing solid to vibrate? Gosh, that’s three right off the top of my head. How about electrostatics? Passing through solid walls without regard for the charges inside the atoms that make up those walls…

Strike three, but we’ll let you send another batter to the plate.
.

Lectures like that strike me as slightly funny, coming from someone who repeatedly had to be explained something so simple and essential to the scientific method like the appeal to ignorance, before he finally stopped this fallacious kind of reasoning.

See, this is really where you need to review those ufo nutter posts. They, like you, glom onto one particular phrase that makes them sound all sciencey, and then they keep repeating it, just in case nobody read it the first time.

Yes, dear, we know what an appeal to ignorance is. And by the way, it’s not “essential to the scientific method,” is it? Slightly detrimental, wouldn’t you say? Less emotion. More reason.

I left my language general because I actually cut you some slack and thought you didn’t need any specification.

Of course you did. Because gosh, people never require specifics when arguments are being made, do they?

You think you can lecture someone on science, but you fail to see the difference between a scientific theory that needs to be backed up by evidence, and a “view” – which is a personal interpretation of these theories, and up to our personal tastes, and doesn’t have any business in science ?

Ha. See what you just did there? How is “a personal interpretation of these theories” – a “view” – separate from a scientific interpretation, if that “view” is presented in a debate about the very science itself? Are you expressing your “views” here? They why are you “lecturing” Phil on how to do science? Oh, wait, you never actually lectured him on how to do science, did you? You just expressed your “view” that his “view” regarding someone else’s “view” was not polite.

Honestly, Leander, this is crank 101. Substituting pedantry for rational thought. Give us a break.

It was fun while it lasted, but I’m tired of your antics.

Of course you are, because none of us bow down to your greatness. Crank. Nobody believes me because they are bad scientists. Crank. Their all agin’ me. Crank. I’m going to go away to my Remote Sensing Conference and keep my esoteric wisdom to myself. Crank.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again….

Have a nice day.

Crank.

“I pointed out that it doesn’t look very good if you just stand around complaining, sometimes in an insulting way, about how peple are not doing something right.”

That’s funny. From my point of view, that is exactly what you are doing, Leander. You are assuming that Phil and others have not put forth effort to determine if ghosts are real, you complain that they haven’t done the work to your satisfaction, and yet you are unwilling to do the work yourself when others suggest it to you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black syndrome.

Leander also said,

“I’m still waiting for you to explain how the concept of ghosts, as it is commonly understood, if true, would violate the laws of nature, and which ones specifically.”

That is exactly what we have been trying to do, but you aren’t listening. Your logically fallacy is that ghosts exist in the first place, and so scientists must therefore devise some method of detecting them. This is the opposite of how science works. Science is based on what we can observe and repeat under controlled conditions, eliminating all bias and human error. Ghost hunting has never withstood even the most basic scientific tests.

Oh, you don’t like the Loch Ness Monster analogy because why?

“But that’s because the nature of a Loch is not in dispute, and it’s relatively easy to thoroughly search it.”

The nature of air is not in dispute, but that’s where ghosts are supposed to exist. The nature of light and dark is not in dispute, but for some reason ghosts are believed to only come out at night. How about Bigfoot? Or the Yeti? Or werewolves? Aliens? UFO’s? These too are all examples of things people have claimed to see, but that have no evidence to support their existence. Which analogy to ghosts would you like?

“There’s no consensus on the nature of consciousness however,”

Oh really? How did you come to that conclusion? (Here’s the part where I normally would ask for your source, but you don’t seem to use them.) Have your degrees in psychology, biology and physiology taught you this? Oh, you don’t have those? Well, then you’ve studied psychology and neuroscience in college, right? Please tell me you at least googled “conciousness,” before making such a statement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness

I think there is a great deal that we DO know about consciousness and the human mind, and very little that we DON’T know. And what we don’t know gets smaller and smaller all the time. Even if human consciousness could exist outside a body (which it can’t), there’s still no evidence that said consciousness could affect the real world in any physical way.

“Yes, it is pretty safe to say that Nessie doesn’t exist. But that’s because the nature of a Loch is not in dispute, and it’s relatively easy to thoroughly search it.”
What has the nature of the lake got to do with claims that Nessie exists or not?

“There’s no consensus on the nature of consciousness however, and as of yet no way to “thoroughly search it” in a way that would allow us to understand it well enough to say it can’t exist without a body.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Oh hang on. Anything I say to criticise this seemingly ridiculous statement will be returned with something like “why did you assume I meant human consciousness… I could have meant machine consciousness… blah blah blah”. Because that is what you do. You turn seemingly clear-cut statements into ambiguous doublespeak. Shift the goal posts so to speak. Very good. Carry on.

“Right there, you’ve made a claim without any evidence: “ghosts were the continued consciousness after death of an organism” That is a presumption or guess or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it.”

Sorry, but no. If I go and say “last time I checked, Superman was an alien from the planet Krypton”…does that constitute the claim that Superman is real ? Where in such a statement do you find such a claim, that suggests I think the thing referred to is real ?

“Because there is no proof, it is safe to say that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.”

I don’t like this analogy either. Yes, it is pretty safe to say that Nessie doesn’t exist. But that’s because the nature of a Loch is not in dispute, and it’s relatively easy to thoroughly search it. There’s no consensus on the nature of consciousness however, and as of yet no way to “thoroughly search it” in a way that would allow us to understand it well enough to say it can’t exist without a body. Your example is overly simplifying.

“Switching off sarcasm filter, since it doesn’t seem to be recognized…”

Don’t worry, it was recognised. Did you not pick up on that from my wording ? Hm. And it clearyly is a difference, I’m sorry if you don’t get that. I didn’t say it was his job. I pointed out that it doesn’t look very good if you just stand around complaining, sometimes in an insulting way, about how peple are not doing something right. Especially if you place value on education, you’re really making a fool of yourself if you keep doing that, instead of giving at least some constructive criticism. I don’t know how else to explain it to you, I hope this time the subtle difference is not lost on you.

“No, I couldn’t. I can’t find anything to back up any rational explanation for your beliefs, other than the usual crank need to feel like you’re an outsider exploring esoteric knowledge that “bad ol’ science” refuses to acknowledge.”

No offense, but you’re making a fool of yourself too, at least to any impartial reader of this exchange. You keep referring to a belief of mine. You’ve shown that you can quote me – so why, after repeatedly being asked to do so, are you still failing to quote this belief of mine ? So far you haven’t, and that behaviour suggests that you’re just trying to paint me into one of the few corners that you’re equipped to deal with.

“Their work builds upon the solid foundation laid by countless scientists working for years, decades, centuries before them. It uses the tools and techniques consistent with good science. It is not on “shaky ground,” as you claim.”

Maybe YOU should pay attention. Or it’s another one of your straw-men. I never claimed their work or methods were on shaky ground. The idea that consciousness depends on the brain is though. How did you say it again ? Oh right, “it seems”…

“It does not require the introduction of any paranormal theories or phenomena that do not follow the consistent laws of nature.”

I’m still waiting for you to explain how the concept of ghosts, as it is commonly understood, if true, would violate the laws of nature, and which ones specifically.

“That is the power of science. And that is why real scientists continue to employ its methods to investigate the natural world.”

Lectures like that strike me as slightly funny, coming from someone who repeatedly had to be explained something so simple and essential to the scientific method like the appeal to ignorance, before he finally stopped this fallacious kind of reasoning.

“No, you did not. Like all cranks, you use general language peppered with key phrases and sciencey-sounding words that is vague enough to give you the “outs” you need when called on your b.s.”

Dude, seriously, if you have any self-respect, cut that behaviour. I left my language general because I actually cut you some slack and thought you didn’t need any specification. It wasn’t an out, and obviously I didn’t need one, since I specified what I meant, and you failed to demonstrate how that specification would constitute BS. Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself like that.

“Case in point. Laughably so, and predictable.”

You don’t get it, do you ? You think you can lecture someone on science, but you fail to see the difference between a scientific theory that needs to be backed up by evidence, and a “view” – which is a personal interpretation of these theories, and up to our personal tastes, and doesn’t have any business in science ?

You know what cognitive dissonance is ? It’s what makes people start calling other people cranks, when they have nothing clever to back up their standpoint with. It was fun while it lasted, but I’m tired of your antics. Your behaviour suggests you still haven’t had a shred of a realization of how to engage in decent discourse – so I’ll leave you in peace, possibly even thinking that you’re a reasonable, civilized person, and “won”.