Deconstructing "Pseudoskepticism"

originally posted by: zackli
a reply to: Logarock

What strikes me here, is that this information was of no use or consequence to you personally. Its as though you passed into, close enough proximity, an information field....if you will and simply had the gear....again if you will... to pick it up.

I wouldn't go quite that far... No consequence... Yes... Information field... No.

The problem with discussing this phenomena is it just one of those things that cant be discussed in depth with folks that haven't experienced it. Even giving the "experiential" critics all the room one possibly can changes nothing. By that I mean accepting their idea that it is not something of value outside the personal experience still has no bearing on the phenomena.

Its very simple. Its subjective because its not understandable even when objective evidence of same in known and demonstrated.

And we are not even approaching the problems encountered by schools of thought on the issue that bring in criteria, source verification, examination of the subject material, examination of the "medium" if you will, relationships and relevance, justifications, scope, influence, direction, conflict with pet ideas and interpretations, orthodoxy .....and it can get thick in a hurry. It all becomes very political, emotional, jealousy enters in, fear, embarrassment ect. Folks really do place their inability to understand something as the primary justification for rejecting it in the end. You go casting out among the tombs with verifiable objective evidence sitting right there in its right mind and the locals will ask you to leave. That's about all you can expect anyway when you do offer objective information into the question. Witnesses are paid off, folks are accused of high level sorcery, folks want a "sign" and it never ends.

a reply to: Logarock

The problem with discussing this phenomena is it just one of those things that cant be discussed in depth with folks that haven't experienced it.

Yup. The exact same type of thing (by which I mean some type of psychic phenomena) could probably even happen to me and I most likely would give it no significant meaning, or perhaps that I'm hearing voices, it's all a coincidence etc.

Even giving the "experiential" critics all the room one possibly can changes nothing. By that I mean accepting their idea that it is not something of value outside the personal experience still has no bearing on the phenomena.

Anything I "could"/would say to that would be likely to come off as insulting or simply wouldn't lead to fruitful discussion. A subjective experience that can't be felt by others and has never been experienced as such by others, as stated implicitly in one of the prior posts, can not really be dealt with or reasoned.

originally posted by: zackli

Anything I "could"/would say to that would be likely to come off as insulting or simply wouldn't lead to fruitful discussion. A subjective experience that can't be felt by others and has never been experienced as such by others, as stated implicitly in one of the prior posts, can not really be dealt with or reasoned.

I would just like to say, I admire your restraint.

If you are a reader and should find yourself without a book to read, consider this one.

www.amazon.com...

a reply to: zackli

Well its like a lot of experiences that actually happened but unless you were there......like combat.

You must admit that the only folks that have a subjectivity problem with some experiences are those who never had the experience. Every time I see this word come up in a discussion of this nature I just think hay there's another one.

And by all means don't let condescension get in your way. After all they are just a bunch that have the gas to claim they had an experience while we weren't there. The nerve! And claiming something others cant verify...indeed.

a reply to: zackli

Not to nit pick your OP, but in the third paragraph you said:

It is said that Albert Einstein tried to make a light bulb in ten thousand different ways before figuring out the best way to do so.

Albert Einstein was born in March, 1879.

There were many people working on trying to make a light bulb, some decades before Einstein was even born.

Thomas Edison filed a patent in November, 1879 for the first long lasting light bulb (same year Einstein was born).

May have been just a slip of the mind on your part.

Kind of surprised that no one commented on it however.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Wow... Not nitpicking at all. Such a glaring oversight would be ridiculed if I was in your situation.

I guess that's what I get for writing things while I'm really tired...