Do you believe in any of these?

[uppityperson]

Poll question: Do you believe in any of these?

ghosts
ufo's
esp

Leaving the definition of each up to the individual, since definitions can be different and the definition matters. I am one who says it depends on the definition.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Of course, some "flying objects" are "unidentified."

Saying there are "UFOs" doesn't claim we're being visited by space aliens, it just means that sometimes people see something in the sky and don't know what it is.

Maybe you should ask if people believe in extra-terrestrial flying saucers.

[Solon]

4. I believe in UFO's the same way I believe in Strangers...

I heard that from someone, forgot who.

[Seabiscuit]

207. My wife has seen UFOs and ghosts. I've personally experienced ESP.

I therefore cannot debunk any of it.

[eleny]

2. Do the skeletons in my closet count?

[Buzz Clik]

3. Some people are not being honest.

Anyone who believes in "Democratic leadership" has faith in things not seen.

[mahina]

5. Rational person here,

and I lived in a house with a ghost that hassled me.

If I hadn't had that three year long experience I wouldn't believe, but I did.

[krispos42]

6. I believe in ghosts

Because I believe I've experienced one.

I don't believe in alien space visitors. I'mm sure they are out there. I don't think they're flying around and anally probing rural drunks or cows. If they were using any space travel method allowed by our current understand of physics, we would see them coming months or years away. If they were able to hide that, we wouldn't be seeing them at all. Period.

And with ESP... if it's real, it's buried under a heap of hoaxes.

[lips]

7. The human mind is a terrible thing to put in a vase.

[slowry]

8. Any definition?

Then I believe in ESP, assuming ESP is defined as Honey-Nut Cheerios :).

[undeterred]

9. All three. But only one at a time.

:shrug:

[The Straight Story]

10. I believe in goats and Extra Sexual Partying

mmmm goats..... :)

[spoony]

23. But do you have proof of these goats?

:)

[silverweb]

11. Maybe.

(1) My belief or disbelief has absolutely no effect on whether these things are real or not.

(2) I lack sufficent evidence to really know either way about the reality of any of these phenomena.

Ergo, I'll stick with my usual "anything's possible" and give a firm "maybe" as my answer. :D

[New Earth]

12. I said all 3

because I refuse to not believe in anything, first of all. Yes, everything is possible...
UFO's - never seen one, but I'm sure there are plenty of unidentified flying objects around here...
ghosts - never seen one or experienced one I don't think, but I am sure they are real, that's just my belief...
ESP - definately real. Had way too many experiences with it myself to say it's not. I wish everyone could experience so that more would believe. However, when it comes to that, sometimes you have to believe first. :)

[silverweb]

17. Belief versus disbelief.

I think belief can be too naive and disbelief can be too cynical.

That's why I don't "believe" in much of anything until I see some real evidence, but I also don't reject any possibilities.

We haven't figured our own brains out yet, let alone the _universe/multiverse_. I welcome mysteries.

[Phoonzang]

13. All 3.

Some more than others though. I don't know about the word "believe" though. I've seen evidence for each, but not proof.

[Ian David]

14. It makes me ill that so many of our fellow DUers are such dim bulbs.

We're trying to build a bridge to the 22nd Century with minds stuck in the 17th Century.

Ghosts indeed.

[spoony]

19. In the last few hours I've decided

that I'm happy to read the sort of tripe you just wrote. If there are going to be people who look down on others for their beliefs in these sorts of things, then I'm glad that doing so "makes you ill." I'm glad your superiority complex comes at a price and that such arrogance comes with discomfort.

[Kaleko]

74. Good point, spoony. It's the pride in one's own prejudice that is so sickening.

Why not admit that you don't know instead of pre-judging phenomena you haven't experienced? If we have to believe in anything, we've already moved into unscientific conjecture.

[Quixote1818]

20. Next thing you know, people will believe we can talk to one another

through little boxes even though someone is on the other side of the world. Or some bozo will say it's possible to go to the moon!

Skepticism is very important, but keeping an open mind is important too.

[slowry]

24. Is making fair analogies also important? Because you utterly fail at that. n/t

[Quixote1818]

26. Maybe you should read my other post

Then maybe you will see where I was coming from.

The point was that many things seemed impossible at one point in time yet turned out not to be impossible. Thats why it's important to keep an open mind about things. Just because you personally haven't experienced them or they seem nutty doesn't mean they are impossible especially with human evolution.

Sorry that went over your head. :eyes:

On Edit: Would you talk to someone like that in person? Why are people so rude on the Internet? Maybe because they can hide behind a computer? There are much better ways to phrase things than being demeaning.

[SidDithers]

53. And many things that seemed impossible...

really were.

Sid

[Quixote1818]

63. Of course

But just remember, you don't see any pessimist heads on coins. Not that I expect to be on a coin but I am sure they are much more fun to party with.

[LandOLincoln]

29. He did not fail. His analogies are completely apt. n/t

[slowry]

30. Completely? Well, that's a relief; you wouldn't want to be half-apt about it. n/t

[Ian David]

44. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown. n/t

[Quixote1818]

49. I didn't say I believed in the above I just said to keep an open mind about things

I use to be skeptical about everything, but over time looking at nature it's amazing what can be created through science and energy. Take us communicating like this on our computers for example. 200 years ago this would be black magic yet we think nothing of it. I just refuse to close the door on hardly anything though I don't see the Rockies beating the Red Sox.

[qdemn7]

144. Don't be so open minded

You let your brains fall out. :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

32. Depends on the definition Ian. Seems we must have different definitions.

It is a broad word, can have many definitions. As such, depending on definitions. I can believe in all 3 or none. I have experienced some scientifically unexplainable things in my life, which was irritating in a way.

[Ian David]

43. Just because something is unexplained does not mean it is unexplainable. n/t

[uppityperson]

50. scientifically unexplainable, not repeatable (etc)

What makes life, for instance. Why did my child know when a traumatic thing happened to me, right then, when was 900 miles away, for instance. Sometimes I cannot explain things, do not see how they are explainable except by things like esp (though the term, all those terms in OP, have been co-opted for different uses).

[Exultant Democracy]

35. I ventured down to the DU Lounge today and found out we have "vampires" advocates on DU too

:banghead:

[Ian David]

42. Well, that's different. Vampire chicks are hot. n/t

[wuushew]

40. I agree 100%

There is very little nobility in ignorance :thumbsup:

[Snarkturian Clone]

82. I hear ya. NT

[Perry Logan]

83. Deleted.

[Dora]

100. About that 17th century you speak of so disparagingly....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century


.... the 17th Century falls into the Early Modern period of Europe and was characterized by the Baroque cultural movement and the beginning of modern science and philosophy, including the contributions of Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton; ....

[Ian David]

105. Ok, fine... let's say pre-neolithic then. n/t

[Blashyrkh]

150. Well I'm glad you came along and sorted out that discussion. Any other places we're going wrong...

Your majesty?

[Ian David]

174. Don't worry, I'll be sure to let you know when I see it. n/t

[Marrah_G]

187. It makes me ill that a Duer would act like such a jerk to others.

[Quixote1818]

15. ESP seems possible with human Evolution.

I think there are UFO's, but none that come anywhere near Earth. I doubt there are Ghosts but will keep an open mind about them. I think it's clear that Animals can sense danger and weather patterns hours if not days away. ESP is one there might be a rational answer for since energy is constantly sent out into the Universe and it's possible some humans may be hyper sensitive to this energy though I tend to doubt it. I heard Dolphins can use Sonar to see disease in people and other animals though. Things like sonar suggest animals my be able to develop the ability to read thoughts or tune into danger that is far away. Perhaps some day humans will develop the ability to talk to one another using the same kind of energy cell phones or radio's use? Maybe it can be bread into people.

On Edit: Cell Phones have developed through earthly evolution. They occur in the Universe. Humans are part of the universe made of the same energies found in Cell phones, so the ability to talk to one another with thoughts only, would seem possible through billions of years of evolution if it was necessary for our survival. Humans would need to develop the ability to send these thoughts much like a Dolphin sends out Sonar. I don't think there is any concrete proof that anyone is there yet.

If no one had ears we would think sound is a joke, but through evolution we have developed the ability to sense sound and decipher it.

On second Edit: Perhaps Humans are losing our ESP ability's because we no longer need them for survival. It's possible Animals have more fine tuned Extra Sensory Perception just for survival.

[Whisp]

199. my dog has esp.

he knows when walkies for him are on my mind before I make any moves towards the leash or anything like that - I could be in another room just Thinking about it and he starts his excited dance. I don't walk him in a regular routine, so he can't know by that. He also has extra sensitive hearing, but that's not too unusual for a dog I suppose. He can 'hear' my car while I am a block or two away from home - hubby knows I'm back soon just by how Milo (the sweetest dog on earth) acts.

[ThePowerofWill]

16. I believe in none of the above.

I am open minded on the subject and admit i may be wrong so i don't judge those who do believe. Lotta schemers in these areas, so tend to look toward skepticism 1st.

[Phoonzang]

18. Good attitude to have IMO

Not mine, but then I've been obsessed....I mean studying the paranormal and such since 1st grade.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. As much as I believe in

God, the truthfulness of the media and the integrity of a professional politician.

[H2O Man]

22. I believe in energy. n/t

[buzzard]

77. Me too and it can neither be created or destroyed and as such I am open to how it manifests itself

here or elsewhere.

[buzzard]

78. Me too and it can neither be created or destroyed and as such I am open to how it manifests itself

here or elsewhere.

[cgrindley]

95. Are you entirely uneducated?

E=MC^2

Energy can be both destroyed or created according to this handy dandy little equation.

[YankmeCrankme]

99. Ah, that is incorrect. The law of Conservation of Energy says otherwise.

You miss read that equation.

[Blashyrkh]

153. Are YOU?

E = MC^2 is about the CONVERSION of matter to enery and vice versa. It has nothing to do with the destruction of matter, which is impossible.

[immoderate]

184. I just think of matter as a form of energy.

It works in most cases. But then there are virtual particles, which form spontaneously. In this case though, matter=anti-matter, so conservation (of something) is maintained. :)

--IMM

[mondo joe]

178. What do you mean by "how it manifests itself"?

[Evoman]

102. Yes, so do I.

I believe in the whole spectrum. Unfortunately, I don't think the energy your probably talking about fits in that spectrum. I may be wrong.

[H2O Man]

114. Perhaps

you could identify what it is that you are speculating that I am speaking of?

[Whisp]

202. I believe in everything

nothing is sacred.
I believe in nothing, everything is sacred.

from Robbins' 'Even Cowgirls get the Blues'

I like your answer, H2O - energy. The untapped energy of our minds have such great possibilities - anything Is possible. WE may be the Creators. Just imagine our latent power. exciting stuff. Unfortunately we have been trained not to step beyond certain boundaries dictated to us to keep that 5 or 10% of our working brains concentrated on the daily toils of survival and keeping status quos instead of exploring that vast and amazing frontier freely without ridicule.

[Fed_Up_Grammy]

25. Gremlins,maybe,but none of the others.

[DemReadingDU]

27. I just finished reading Allison Dubois

"Don't Kiss Them Good-Bye"
http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Kiss-Good-bye-Allison-DuBois/dp/074328190X


Yeh, I believe

[TheFarseer]

28. It's hard to believe in this vast universe

that there isn't life on some other world. As for aliens coming to Alabama to give people anal probes - I'm more skeptical.

[Posteritatis]

31. That's my reasoning

Fermi aside, I kinda suffer brain failure at the idea that we're all there is out there. I'd be less surprised at ET visits on Earth in the present day than I would be at the existence of ghosts, though I don't exactly expect proof of either anytime soon.

Basically, I'm pretty sure I believe in what's implied by UFOs, but I don't think we've had visitations, or are even necessarily likely to have them.

[Quixote1818]

65. There have probably been civilizations that have risen and fallen

billions of years ago. In several billion years some thinking creature may be posting the same thought on his/her computer in another galaxy.

[Tikki]

33. ESP....which is barely more than a....

educated and trained perception.


Tikki

[Exultant Democracy]

34. How about Zombie Jesus?

http://www.zombiejesus.com/

[emilyg]

36. esp and ghosts - yes.

[Raine]

37. For sure I believe in two of them

ghosts and esp. The house I live in has ghosts and I have a friend who has esp. Ufo's I'm not sure, I haven't any experience with them but I still wouldn't rule them out.

[mvd]

56. I haven't seen ghosts or UFOs

And am not psychic. But I do believe something is out there that can't be explained by logic. There are too many credible witnesses among the explainable stories and ones from true woo woos.

[mondo joe]

38. I recall the GOP candidates being asked if they believe in evolution. These results are

about as sad as those were.

[Labors of Hercules]

39. Is it necessary to "believe" in these things?

If there is convincing evidence, then one of the three may be a logical explanation for a particular occurrence... Is it possible they exist? Yes, Of course it is.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheUniverse]

45. I believe there is probably some form of life somewhere in the universe besides Earth.

I don't have any reason to believe any lifeform has visited Earth. And I flat out dont believe in the other 2...

[mvd]

46. I believe in all three, but..

I admit to not having all the answers.

[orleans]

47. i saw a dead relative when i was just a little kid

she talked to me and wasn't transparent. she scared the crap out of me--not because i knew she was dead (because i didn't know what dead was) but because i turned around and she was there. my mother & grandma were both witness to my hysteria as i ran to the kitchen where they were. my mother said it sounded as if someone was killing me because of the way i was screaming. (i had been told i wouldn't see her anymore--and there she was!)

if something like that hadn't happened to me i really think i would say no, i don't believe in ghosts and offer up numerous logical explanations for it.

esp? i don't know
ufos? i don't know

i'm a skeptic on a lot of fronts--not on ghosts.

[UncleSepp]

48. Oh, who gives a crap?

Personally, I don't give a crap what anyone else believes in, as long as they give me the courtesy of not giving a crap what I believe in or don't believe in. If someone believes in something I don't, fine - if someone doesn't believe in something I do believe in, also fine. It does bug the hell out of me when someone describes my beliefs for me, defines my concepts for me, and then proceeds to attack me on the basis of what they made up. It doesn't matter whether it's my political beliefs being attacked in such a manner by a conservative or my spiritual beliefs being attacked by a religious person or an atheist: the behavior is the same, and it is just as obnoxious.

I have no problem with people who believe in one or more gods, and I have no problem with people who believe in no gods. I have no problem with people who believe in all kinds of supernatural phenomena, and I have no problem with people who believe in none of them. I have no problem with people who enjoy a nice juicy pork chop, people who eat strict Kosher diets, or people who are vegan. I have no problem with drinkers or with non drinkers, with weed smokers or straightedge folks. I don't have a problem with people who believe being gay is an immoral choice or who believe that white people were created in a laboratory by a mad scientist. I don't agree, but as long as I still have the freedom to disagree, so what?

[SidDithers]

51. 3 of them, 37%...

oh fuck, the world is doomed.

Sid

[Blashyrkh]

154. What do you say to the 80% of Americans who believe in "god"?

[BushOut06]

160. A lot of Americans still cling to old superstitions

"God" was created by ancient man to explain what he couldn't understand. The desire to have an explanation for the unknown is a very strong one. Mankind has also constantly been trying to find his place in the universe, and the idea of an afterlife helps people cope with the natural fear of death and the unknown.

Over time, we've come to understand many of the natural forces that ancient man once attributed to God. But yet many people still embrace the idea of an all-powerful god.

If there weren't such a historical attachment to god - if everyone were humanistic - I wonder how willing modern humans would be to accept the notion of God. If you had never been exposed to the concept of an all-powerful deity, would it be easy to convince you that there was one?

[Blashyrkh]

165. I do not agree god was created by man. God was created to ENSLAVE man.

I've been exposed to the concept of an all-powerful deity all my life and I've never found it convincing. Thought patterns can make the concept of god obsolete.

Anyways, my original point was that a few people have shown displeasure at so many people voting affirmative on these topics, I wanted to make sure that everyone who believes in crazy unproven shit was being lumped in the same basket. I don't think they are, which makes them smelly hypocrites.

[SidDithers]

173. That they're as weak-minded as those...

who believe in ESP, UFOs and ghosts.

Poll up to 42% now believing in all 3. We are well and truly fucked as a species.

Sid

[Basileus Basileon]

52. I knew what the most common answer would be.

Didn't make me any more sad to see it.

The woo-woo loves the internets, and the internets love the woo-woo.

[mvd]

54. I'm happy to see it

Not every experience can be explained.

[Basileus Basileon]

59. I wouldn't be quite so sure we can't.

http://p300.scripps.edu/papers/58.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm
http://www.arts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P.html

[mvd]

60. Doesn't change what I said

I also believe in near death experiences, since you brought it up. There is no perception like that when you are declared dead.

[uppityperson]

88. Your links are to out of body experiences and EEGs.

What does that have to do with what I am asking, especially with this part of my question "Leaving the definition of each up to the individual, since definitions can be different and the definition matters. I am one who says it depends on the definition."?

If you don't believe in any of these, no matter what description, no matter how broad or narrow a description, why come insult those who might? Do you wish to argue, insult or just get this topic locked also?

[Basileus Basileon]

93. Right. I have information on three different experiences,

each of which were once believed to be totally unexplainable by science, and each of which have been now explained. This lends some degree of support to my skepticism of the claim that science will not be capable of explaining all experiences.

[uppityperson]

122. Too bad they are not what this topic is about. eom

[Basileus Basileon]

130. But were appropriate in response to the poster I was responding to,

for reasons given.

[uppityperson]

69. Even with the wide open "whatever your definition is", you are sad.

That makes me sad. Being closed minded, calling people names who are not, that makes me sad.

[Basileus Basileon]

70. The only way one can truly be open minded

is to possess minimum standards of evidence and to set the default for any hypothesis to be "false." Otherwise you're merely bound to whims.

[uppityperson]

85. It's been proven, by evidence, that boys are smarter than girls, also that

blacks need the help of whites to survive. Boys score better on tests, proving they are smarter. Blacks have gotten better, but back when emancipation happened they needed the help of whites to survive since they were so immature and childish. Isn't "evidence" wonderful? The only way to truly be open minded is if someone believes your "evidence", right? Interesting.

For those who might somehow think I believe the above about boys/girls black/white, these examples of things possessing minimum standards of evidence were for this poster's benefit, and I in no way believe either. They have been used to promote sexism, racism, by those who believe in these minimum standards of evidence. For those who might somehow think I am calling this poster sexist or racist, I am merely giving examples where "a minimum standard of evidence" does not show one to be open minded.

[Basileus Basileon]

90. See, in both those situations you are relying on cherry-picked scraps of "evidence,"

and discarding the massive amounts of research that suggest that both propositions are bunk. While I am "open" to both theories, that means I assume both are false and am willing to be convinced otherwise. What you have posted is wholly unconvincing. I find that both have an inadequate evidence base, and so reject both.

Any good standard of evidence would require the majority of the evidence to support an idea. A minimum would at least require the majority of the evidence not to reject it. Latching on to only that which supports your theory is a game for pseudoscientists and woo-woos.

[LanternWaste]

94. However, being open-minded...

However, being open-minded is not mutually exclusive with being respectful of the beliefs of others...

Some people are sad because other have a different faith. I get sad because people trivialize others so easily. Six of one and half a dozen of another, I guess.

[noamnety]

112. You're violating forum rules

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

I don't believe in UFOs or aliens or ESP or reincarnation. But I also don't believe in calling people names if their beliefs differ from mine, so long as those beliefs don't harm others and don't involve bigotry.

[Basileus Basileon]

131. If it pleases you, replace "woo-woo" with

"the cultural phenomenon in which people abandon the need for preponderance of evidence to believe in extraordinarily unlikely claims, from conspiracy theories to supposed paranormal phenomena."

[Whisp]

203. electricity was also woo woo at one time.

astounding that people like you think that anything discoverable has already been discovered. We are on the apex of knowledge, nothing else to learn! close up shop! :rofl:

[Ediacara]

55. It may surprise some people, but I think that there's maybe a 10% chance that some UFOs really are..

piloted by space aliens. Maybe even a higher chance... who knows? I do know this though: if other intelligent species evolved on other planets around other stars during the same narrow slice of time that we did, they'd probably spend time finding and studying others like them rather than cataloging (another) red dwarf.

[TwilightGardener]

57. This time of year, ghosts.

Had some weird incidents in my old Victorian shack. But then I'm easily creeped out.

[Marr]

58. How embarrassing.

I'm amazed that so many people here believe in these things.

[mondo joe]

62. I wonder if this is the equivalent to some Freeper poll about believing in Noahs Ark.

:shrug:

[Whisp]

204. and I am saddened

that too many here have lost that wonderful childlike curiosity of life and ridicule and squelch the ones that do have it.

[Cameron27]

61. None

(UFO's, yes if the definition is the general purpose one without alien connotations.)

[dysfunctional press]

64. ufo's DO exist- they're reported daily around the world...

the controversy about them is whether or not some of them are extra-terrestrial in origin.

[slowry]

66. Hmm, as it stands: 74% of DU'ers believe in Ghosts, UFOs, ESP, or some combination of these.

What the hell? I really hope a large contingent here is smarter than me, and has threads like this hidden, or just ignores them... has to be, right? Phew.

[uppityperson]

68. Of some sort definition. Remember, I left the definition part open

Someone might believe in "little green men from mars", "wtf was that in the sky", or "as big as the universe is, I bet there are spacegoing beings" as different definitions of ufos. Not to mention ghosts and esp. There are lots of definitions, a long line of which people may be here or there in their beliefs.

[slowry]

137. Honestly, that's just not reassuring! n/t

[yowzayowzayowza]

67. The Ghosts of '32 & '36. n/t

[Breeze54]

71. People who are out of touch with themselves don't believe because

they aren't open to any new idea's. They are closed minded until it happens to them.

I'm not crazy and I have dreamed dreams that I just KNEW would come true...and they did.

Call it what you want and it was baffling to me as well but it has happened and more than once.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. I've seen head scratching shit I can't explain "logically" but I feel no need to proseltyze about

that stuff.

I would say I have personally experienced phenomena that falls into one of those 3 categories. I'm not going to say which one. The meaning of many of those experiences was intensely personal to me.

And I remain a skeptic and a firm believer in the scientific method.

But I also think that when it comes to everyone's path and experience in life and the universe, your mileage may vary.

[Dewlso]

73. UFOs. Ghosts. ESP.

Sure, why not. It isn't that hard of a stretch to lend belief to any of these 3 ideas. There is much documentation on all 3 subjects. Even the History Channel has covered 2 of these topics at great length. I think it would be harder to lend the belief to honest politicians before UFOs, Ghosts, and ESP. At least there is evidence supporting the 3. I don't see any for politicians. (yet)

[bridgit]

75. i believe in nothing, no tomorrow/yesterday, the red that is within this apple is but a frequency...

of light; light is but an illusion of godhead unattainable, there is no beauty, only death; life is a two left footed pathway to virtually nowhere in fact this entire charade is likely a poorly managed computer program of which i am less that a noble sprite while more to the point .0004 of the backside of a pixelated Google image of The Cheney Family Compound, i am nothing, i am nobody, more pointedly you are less than i presume to be; were you to pay any attention to me you would be able to enjoy so bleak an existence as is only alluded to between the ink, paper & type faced fallacy of a mad, clinically insane graphic artist, it is done, it is over, there is no more cept more & more nothing therefore submit...compliance is far less than futile, highly under rated if while happily...it is mandatory

[gtar100]

76. I voted "It depends on the definition, maybe 3" also

I think conventional definitions of these three phenomenon are far too over-simplified and, typical of self-centered humans, are given overly-human characteristics.

Ghosts - Ever been somewhere that you could 'feel' the sense of history? Was it nothing more than your knowledge of the place or your own mental associations? If you think there was something more to it than just your own thoughts and feelings, that there truly was something "alive" about a place because of events that transpired there (such as in an old house, a sacred burial ground, a mountain pass, a civil war battle field, etc.,) then what is it? Echoes of history only perceptible to mind?

UFOs - "Not all flying objects have been identified". Whoever said that, too funny :) But seriously (if one can be with UFOs), the question I think has more to do with aliens visiting our planet. I have yet to see a report that actually convinces me that aliens have been here, but in contemplating the probability of life throughout the galaxy and universe, it doesn't really seem an impossibility that some species has figured out how to survive the pitfalls of knowledge and right-wing ideology and learned to traverse space and time. So for that, I believe in the possibility but can live with the disappointment if we haven't been.

ESP - This is too easy to dismiss if one thinks of reading others thoughts as if one could hear talking. Thought is so much more than that. And ESP, by its very literal interpretation, is more than that. "Extra-sensory" - beyond the five senses - see, hear, taste, smell, touch. We "sense" the world with more than just these five senses. But these are for sensing the physical world. We live in more than a physical world. We live in the world of concepts and ideas. We "sense" them through our intellect and "make sense" of circumstance and situations through our minds.

[Random_Australian]

79. None of them. Just try and tell me I am not open minded, if you're looking for a fight.

(If not, then ignore everything but the first word - I don't presume to know your motives in creating this, but I can't help but notice one or two floating flamewars on the subject)

[uppityperson]

89. I was trying to make the definition as broad as possible, up to each individual.

For me that opens it way up to "whatever realm" (now if that isn't a woowoo term, I don't know what it is). IF you leave the definition up to the individual (is a ghost ectoplasm, or something that you feel but can't explain, or someone dead you saw, or some other experience, if UFO is little green men from mars or being open to the idea that the universe is a big place and there may be beings who can space travel), then it seems to open it up to even hard core skeptics like me. I am skeptical, distrustful and disliking much of what is promoted, people hurt and taken advantage of by charlatans, believe very much in the Scientific Method of proof (needs to be reproducible, etc) but am open to the idea that all 3 might exist UNDER MY OWN definition.

[Random_Australian]

110. Meh, fair enough, though I take the view that a label that can mean anything means nothing. n/t.

[uppityperson]

121. Indeed. So those that say others are woowoo for this...

'twas broad on purpose.

[Zodiak]

80. Belief is a dodgy thing

So I can say I "believe" in none of it. However, I do not reject the existence of these things outright.

By the way, science does try to tackle some of these issues, and you can find the valid peer-reviewed scientific literature in these journals.

The following are the primary peer-reviewed journals in the field of parapsychology:

Australian Journal of Parapsychology
European Journal of Parapsychology
International Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Near-Death Studies
Journal of Parapsychology
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research
Journal of the Society for Psychical Research
Zeitschrift für Parapsychologie und Grenzgebiete der
Psychologie

The following journals have published papers on parapsychological topics, including the psychology of anomalous experience and paranormal belief:

Anthropology of Consciousness
British Journal of Psychology
Consciousness and Cognition
Cortex
Imagination, Cognition and Personality
International Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease
Journal for Transpersonal Psychology
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Journal of Consciousness Studies
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Personality and Individual Differences
Psychological Bulletin
Psychological Reports


Science does not make itself a grandstanding skeptic when it comes to these issues, so I see no reason why a person should be more dogmatic than the science is. Sure, it is not a huge field, but it is also not as if science does not take these issues seriously as some seem to claim here.

I know that as a scientist, I am dismayed with people using the scientific method to browbeat others. Science is not a religion, nor is it the complete absence of religion....it is simply a methodology that humans use to produce answers over time. To place too much faith in the process being able to get all of the answers raises science to the level of a religion.

Dogmatism of any kind is a hindrance to the pursuit of knowledge.

[Quantess]

81. All 3 have merit.

Some people close themselves off to possibilities. What is the value in thinking "it's impossible"?
Why can't you allow yourself the possibility of things beyond your grasp?

This is so different from religion? No, it is one and the same.

[Perry Logan]

84. If DUers can believe Hillary is unelectable, they can believe anything.

[Romulox]

86. It's all in how you frame it; many people are WAY too literal...

E.g., I am haunted by the "ghost" of my dad. No, I don't believe in ectoplasm, but there is definitely some residual negative "psychic" energy that remains between us, though he is several years dead.

Is this energy "real"? It has a real effect on my life. Does it have any substance beyond my own mind? It influences my current behavior, so to some extent, yes. In a similar way, love is a psychic bond that is quite real, and utterly unfalsifiable by any science I am aware of.

[truebrit71]

87. All three. And I know that makes me an 'idiot' according to some rocket-scientists around here...

..but they are more than welcome to go take a flying f*ck at the moon...

[LanternWaste]

91. I feel compelled to believe that UFO's exist

I feel compelled to believe that UFO's exist (the space-ship kind, not the weather balloon kind) because I believe the the concept of the Infinite exists.

As for ghosts and/or ESP, I really have no opinion formulated on them. They may exist, they may not... if I was a betting man, I doubt I'll ever see evidence either way.

[Fox Mulder]

92. All of them.

[cgrindley]

96. None of that shit exists and it's embarrassing that anyone thinks otherwise

believing in this sort of feeble minded crap is an affront to human dignity. I cannot get over the fact that so many people here would even as much as admit to believing in this idiocy.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. None of them, depending on the definition.

If you're defining UFO's as flying objects that are unidentified, yeah, I believe in those.

If you're using the usual context as flying saucers with aliens that like to probe anuses, then no, I don't.

Of course I don't. That's stupid.

[uppityperson]

124. "Leaving the definition of each up to the individual..."

Leaving the definition of each up to the individual, since definitions can be different and the definition matters.

[RandomKoolzip]

98. Holy fuck, what a sad thread.

89% of y'all believe in that shit?! :cry:

Why do so many humans have such a fervent desire to prove humanity's harshest critics right? I'll never understand that kind of shit.

[slowry]

134. Kinda makes you wonder if America is worth saving, at all.

Haha, I'm not really that dark. Can you imagine?

[LanternWaste]

208. Sounds like fun...

One day (if we're lucky), we'll believe in the things you believe in, and disbelieve the things you disbelieve. Then there will be peace on earth and a new age of enlightenment.

Sounds like fun...

[karlrschneider]

101. I see UFOs every day. And I presume esp doesn't mean "extra small -----"

:D

[BushOut06]

103. Not a single shred of evidence for any of them

Don't you think that if UFO's truly existed, we'd have at least some tangible proof? Why is it that psychics so routinely fail when put under scientific scrutiny? As for ghosts, that's just patently absurd. Just because you see or hear something that you can't explain, it doesn't mean it's supernatural.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Do you know what the words "UFO" stand for?

Just curious.

[Basileus Basileon]

111. I think most people are taking "believe in UFOs" to mean

"believe that at least some UFOs are the products of extraterrestrial intelligences," which is a pretty standard colloquial meaning. Nobody would really say "I believe that all observed flying objects are identified by all observers."

[Warren DeMontague]

117. If people are sure unidentified flying objects are, say, extraterrestrial spaceships

then to those people, at least, they aren't unidentified, anymore.

Personally, I take "UFO" to mean, people seeing flying things that are not readily identified.

I think there have been a lot of claimed examples of such phenomena throughout history. I retain an agnostic view as to what such occurrences actually are. I suspect at least some "UFO" sightings in recent decades can be ascribed to secret or "black" Air Force programs (in fact, I think declassified documents have eventually confirmed that explanation in a few cases)

Personally, I've never seen anything that I would call an impossible to identify flying object. Large numbers of people claim they have. Like I said, I remain agnostic. But if the question is "Are UFOs real", the answer HAS TO BE "yes"- because as you say, obviously some flying objects are not going to be identified.

If the question is, "are we being visited by extraterrestrial spaceships", that's a different- and far more specific- question.

[Basileus Basileon]

119. Out of curiosity, "readily identified" by whom, and to what extent?

Where do you think UFO begins? Is there a standard of unidentifiability somewhere out there?

Looking at an airplane flying overhead earlier today, I knew that it was a Northwest-owned 757-200 flying into Midway. I don't know its registration number. I certainly couldn't tell you which 757-200 it was, or where it had come from. Clearly not a UFO, I'd say.

Most people probably couldn't tell an A320 from a 737 on sight, or a 767 from an A330. Most people probably couldn't tell an A320 from an A319 or an A321, unless they've had a good deal of experience working around airports. So suppose a United A320 flies overhead. Average guy might not be able to tell you that's what it is. But most everyone could identify one as "a commercial airliner," even if they don't know the make or manufacturer. UFO?

Supposing it's late at night, and I see a few blinking lights go screaming overhead. It sounds to me like it's a DC-9, which means it's probably owned by Northwest. really don't know that for sure, though, and it really could be any airplane. It might even be a military one; all I noticed was that it was loud. UFO?

Supposing I see a light moving through the evening sky. It makes several maneuvers I believe to be impossible for an aircraft. The next morning, I read in the paper there has been an air show, and there was a Harrier showing off its VTOL abilities to the delight of the crowd. UFO?

I'm out at night, in the desert. I see lights zipping around. Can't be an airplane, I think. As it turns out, the military is testing a new form of aircraft. They know about it, but no civilians outside Lockheed-Martin do until the plane if official revealed two years later. UFO?

Alien craft has been captured by the military. They fly it around on a joyride. I see it and am confused. UFO?

Alien spaceship flies overhead. I think, "That's gotta be aliens." UFO?

Weird thing goes overhead. Nobody knows what it is. It's never seen again. Clearly a UFO.

So where does the line go? I can't think of a satisfactory answer myself.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. If it's not identified, it's an object, and it's flying, It's a "UFO" to someone, at least.

I suppose "to whom" is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess my broader point is that there's a difference between saying "there is no conclusive physical evidence that aliens are visiting us in spaceships" and "no weird shit ever happens, period".

Just like- look, I'm technically an atheist- but I make a distinction between saying "The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old, and it's ludicrous to say dinosaurs lived with humans and were on 'Noah's ark'" versus "You're an idiot for believing in any concept of God". One statement is far more broadly drawn than the other. One statement can be backed up with available logic and evidence. I would make the first, I wouldn't make the second.

I think there are things which haven't been adequately explained. I don't know what they are, but I'm not going to say point blank that everyone who has had an experience that has not been adequately explained is lying or nuts.

[uppityperson]

123. "Leaving the definition of each up to the individual"

Leaving the definition of each up to the individual, since definitions can be different and the definition matters.

What is your stake in this? Why do you react so strongly?

[BushOut06]

129. Yes, I know exactly what it means

I also know that when people use the term "UFO", they're generally talking about alien spacecraft. When someone is asking if you believe in UFOs, they're asking if you believe in extraterrestrial craft.

Let's not play semantics here. We all know damned well what people are talking about when they refer to UFOs.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. It's not semantics. If the question is "Do you believe UFO sightings are alien spacecraft", that's

one thing.

If the question is, "do you believe in UFOs"? That's another. Personally, I've never seen anything I would categorize as a "UFO" (or a FO that couldn't be given an easily inferred identification)... but I do believe that large numbers of other people throughout history have reported, individually and in groups, seeing things which do not lend themselves to easy identification. What those "things" are, or even what was going on -individually or collectively- in those peoples' heads (if there's a difference), I can't say.

But the bottom line is, UFOs are by definition not identified. The word can have all kinds of meanings. As I said upthread, to say "if you believe in UFOs, you're an idiot" is sort of like saying "If you believe in God, you're an idiot". I may not believe in either, but I also recognize that I don't know everything about everything, particularly as it pertains to other peoples' experiences, and the word "God", like the word "UFO", can be pretty broadly drawn and cover a lot of area.

I might be willing to gamble on a statement like "I consider it pretty unlikely that we're being visited, currently and regularly, by spacecraft from another planet, mostly because there's no concrete evidence to say we are" just like I would be willing to say "I consider it pretty unlikely that the Earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were on 'Noah's Ark'"... but both those statements are a long way from "Anyone who believes in UFOs/"God" is an idiot"

[BushOut06]

139. Actually, it is semantics

If you ask people if they believe in UFOs, they're going to assume you're talking about aliens - not merely some rock flying through the sky that can't be identified. UFOs are commonly used to refer to aliens. When the OP asks if people believe in ghosts and ESP, and then throws in UFOs, it's safe to say that in the context of the poll, it's referring to aliens.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Well, I've said my peace, here.

Take it or leave it.

[Evoman]

104. Lol...fucking sad, man.

And it doesn't suprise me at all that most of the people who believe in one, believe in all 3. It's spelled: G U L L I B I L I T Y.

[woo me with science]

106. No fair! You left out fairies and leprechauns! nt

[GoneOffShore]

107. And the Tooth Fairy

and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and the stork.

This is just embarrassing.

Hey, I like the occasional Stephen King novel or Poe's short stories and even that wizard of the lugubrious, H.P. Lovecraft. I've even read all the Harry Potter books and C.S. Lewis' Narnia books. But I have sorted out that these things are products of someone's extraordinarily rich imagination, not provable, scientific fact.

Next woowoo poll will be asking who believes in dragons, vampires and werewolves.

Sheesh!

[Milo_Bloom]

108. Good to see...

It is always nice to see that people are still able to THINK.. but sad to see 26% lost in their religion.


The most recent studies on the subject, shows that belief in the "paranormal" goes UP with education, so with education, there is hope.

[Basileus Basileon]

113. You can turn skeptics into believers by administering

L-dopa. It's kind of interesting. Believers in conspiracy theories are better at picking out patterns from visual and audio noise, but are far more likely to "identify" nonexistent patterns. Increasing dopamine levels increases the subject's pattern-finding abilities but destroys their noise filters, causing them to pick out all sorts of nonexistent patterns from visual noise and harming their abilities to tell real words from made-up ones.

[Milo_Bloom]

115. YAWN!

Ya gotta love that argument. The fact that one can be tricked, proves the original thing false.

Thanks for proving the point.

[Basileus Basileon]

116. Um...what?

I thought it was interesting that the two world-views can be switched between by changing brain dopamine levels. Neither is better than the other in this particular regard--people in Skeptic Mode are more likely to miss out on things that are there, while people in Believer Mode are more likely to believe things irrationally. I don't see how that supports either side.

[Milo_Bloom]

118. Sorry if I misread

I glanced through and thought you were using the line of reasoning that if a event can be recreated in a lab, it discounts the event out of hand. (e.g., injecting a chemical into someone that makes them see ghosts, means there are no ghosts because you can make people see them)

I apologize if I misread.

[uppityperson]

125. thank you for adding on to what you meant.

reading other posts, I don't think you did. Thanks for adding this post.

[BushOut06]

162. Actually, that has happened before

It may not be what the previous poster was referring to, but I've seen it happen. There was an experiment where scientists attached electrodes to a few volunteers' heads, and administered some sort of signals (not sure about all the details). Afterwards, the volunteers reported all sorts of horrific visions - including ghosts, aliens, etc. For them, the memories were quite vivid, as if they had actually happened. It was quite illuminating, and probably explains 99.99% of paranormal reports.

[Pavulon]

126. Do SkunkWorks aircraft count?

I mean the ones that are just classified, not stolen alien technology..

Entered service State of the Art (SOA) Left service 32 years later SOA. Slide rule designed.

Never touched by any of the thousands of sams fired. A truly cool piece of american history.

[uppityperson]

128. "Leaving the definition of each up to the individual"

Leaving the definition of each up to the individual, since definitions can be different and the definition matters.

[Basileus Basileon]

132. But without any sort of guidelines as to what it means,

the poll is so vague as to be more a referendum on people's comfort with varying degrees of looseness of interpretation than it is anything else.

[uppityperson]

152. It did bring out those who differ in the concept of what they believe

open mindedness is. Vague indeed. So why so stridently against it?

[Basileus Basileon]

167. I am entirely for open-mindedness.

With that also comes the responsibility to demand a preponderance of evidence before believing in fantastic claims. Failure to do so gives a society "harmless" belief in ghosts and goblins, but also gives you:

1."Teach-the-controversy" Creationist dolts
2."Why are you supporting the terrorists; of course Iraq has WMD."
3. "My baby don't need vaccinations. She healthy already."
4. "Go to the doctor? Eh, they don't know anything."
5. "Increased funding for physics? What's the point?"
6. "I bet those Global Warming kooks don't know what they're talking about. I'd say they're nuts."
7. "Run out of oil? Yeah, sure. I don't see how that could happen."

I mean, when you're saying that people's completely unsupported beliefs in ghosties and flying saucers are worthy of equal consideration, you're chucking the notion that evidence and objective fact are things that matter out the window, and replacing it with a framework in which all subjective experiences are equally truthy, to borrow Stephen Colbert's word. And it's that framework which continuously stands between humanity and progress.

Saying that woo-wooism ought be respected when it surfaces in a benign form is similar to saying that one ought not treat a cancer if a particular metastasis is not causing any apparent problems.

[Blashyrkh]

127. Yes x 3. The world is a far more amazing place than our five piddly senses tell us.

[slowry]

133. How would you know, with only five piddly senses? Seems like a Catch-22 n/t

[Blashyrkh]

155. Because you don't use the piddly five senses to detect the true nature of the universe.

The five senses manipulate reality into an "unreal" creation. Colour, for example, does not exist. Colour is an illusion, dependant on the length of wavelength of light reflected from an object.

Without the higher senses, the five traditional sense do not enlighten, they deceive.

[slowry]

156. Define illusion. Using this same logic, is sound an "illusion"? What do you even mean? n/t

[Blashyrkh]

163. Like this.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/illusion

I would define it thusly: "a misleading image presented to the vision; something that deceives or misleads intellectually; perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature"

Colour for example.

Grab an object next to you. Let's assume it's a blue pen. You look at the pen and your eyes see it as blue, hence a blue pen. The implication is that the pen itself contains something that specifically gives the pen its blue colour.

Obviously, colours exist to the point where we can manipulate and create them, so the basic concept is not at question. The nature of colour and its sensory input however, is a far stranger beast.

However, this is not true. Colour is determined by the wavelength of light reflecting from the object. Hence the pen appears blue because most of the light reflected from it, is blue. The pen itself has no inherent characteristic that causes it to appear blue, outside of whatever causes the pen to reflect that specific wavelength.

Colour, as interpreted by humans, is an illusion.

I think sound is similar, but I can't explain how it "works" like colour. However, I am studying a Perfect Pitch course (slowly) that teaches you to recognise different notes by hearing their "colour".

I think light and sound are as connected as colour and music. They are the visual and audial equivalents.

[slowry]

166. The pen has the characteristic that it reflects blue light. That's what we mean by "it's blue". n/t

[Blashyrkh]

168. Well yes.

I'm not disputing that the pen exhibits characteristics, that when observed by humans in certain light conditions, cause the pen to appear blue. But the physical pen itself is colourless. Put the same pen in a dark room. What colour is it? In a completely dark room the pen will never be blue. Shine an inredibly bright light onto the pen. The surface will reflect all light and a patch will appear as white, not blue.

Light is critical to colour because objects do not own one inherent colour. Their frequency of any object determines the dominant reflective light.

Through our mind, our five senses, sight particularly, only give us a simplified view of the universe. The pen appears blue because our mind does not show us the calculations just the answer.

But hey, I see you expressed disappointment with DUers for indulging this topic so I won't presume to make you think any further outside the box than you are comfortable.

[mondo joe]

176. Do you think ex-gay conversion is real?

[slowry]

177. Outside the box? You're quite the piece of work.

All these properties of light, which you seem to have the most rudimentary grasp of, were observed, measured, and studied, through our five piddly senses. You're not outside any box; you're just pissing on the walls.

[tom_paine]

135. Let's burn some witches! Woooooo-hoooooooo!

That will keep the ghosts at bay.

[Marrah_G]

188. There will be no witch burning thank you very much

:spank:

[rucky]

136. Yeah, sure. What the hell.

It's more fun to believe in them, and it doesn't hurt anybody.

[BushOut06]

140. If you believe in ANY of these, do you also believe in Bigfoot, werewolves, vampires, etc?

What about Chupacabra? Do you believe that there are dinosaurs still living in the darkest jungles of Africa? Do you believe there are plesiosaurs swimming around in Loch Ness and other lakes around the world?

There are "credible" witnesses for each of these above. So why not believe that these could all be true?

[Swamp Rat]

141. Zandor's ghost is in this thread right now.

;) :D

[Warren DeMontague]

145. You mean the tombstone is not the end?

You're freakin' me out, maaaaaaan!

[Swamp Rat]

147. LOL!

But he really is! :D

Just read all the posts above. Can you spot him? (Don't say it out loud. You'll get in trouble) :D

[Warren DeMontague]

148. To quote Lao Tzu: "Those who don't know, speak. Those who know, don't speak"

So I won't speak. ;-)

[uppityperson]

158. Glad to see it's not just me. eom

[Raejeanowl]

142. Dead Aliens Are Reading Our Minds As We Speak

And have decided to go search for intelligent life in other galaxies.

[slowry]

146. Science can't explain everything. That scares science-y types.

Why are you guys so close-minded? With your units for measuring things, and your "theories" for trying to explain stuff. Haha. Seriously, wtf? Put down the beaker and open your mind a bit. The universe is almost incomprehensibly massive, as revealed by modern science, so why... ahem... as revealed by modern day astrologers, so why couldn't there be life everywhere, and ghosts in my polaroids?

You are so ass nine.

[BushOut06]

149. I prefer to live in a world of science, reason, and logic

Scientists don't pretend to understand the entire universe - but that doesn't mean we should readily accept ghoulies and little green men without any firm evidence.

[Raine]

169. Very boring to me

I like to be open to all things whether they can be explained at this point in time or not.

Edit: typo

[mondo joe]

175. How do you feel about ex-gay conversion?

Or Benny Hinn healing people?

[BushOut06]

180. Benny Hinn and faith healers are quite easy to explain

First of all, I'm sure that there are some out-right frauds out there - people pretending to be crippled and in wheelchairs so that the faith healer can demonstrate a "miracle".

But as for true faith healing, the human brain is far more powerful than many people give it credit for. I don't believe in ESP, but there does seem to be something to "mind over matter" - that is, occasionally the brain can "cure" itself of various illnesses. There are documented cases of cancer disappearing - doctors call it 'spontaneous remission'. It doesn't mean that some supernatural force is at work, however.

[mondo joe]

183. I think there are yet more explanations -

like outright scams.

But that's not really what I'm asking about. :-)

[LanternWaste]

209. Nor does it mean...

Nor does it mean we discount the existence of a thing simply because we have not yet quantified or measured it...

[Skip Intro]

151. We are fools to believe that we can percieve all that is.

[BushOut06]

157. See my post #149

This is the modern era, we should leave superstitious beliefs behind. Just because we don't have a concrete understanding of the entire universe, we know enough to know that people don't rise from the dead, nor do their spirits walk the earth. We know that there is no such thing as ESP and mental telepathy. Why is it that every single time that so-called psychics and people with ESP are put under scientific scrutiny, they always fail?

I'm sure that some people in DU have experiences that they can't explain. I'm sure that some of them may have even think they've seen ghosts. The mind is a very powerful tool, and is more than capable of playing tricks on you - making you think you see or hear something that isn't there. But that doesn't mean that those are real unearthly entities. Just as seeing unusual lights behaving in an odd fashion in the sky isn't evidence of alien spacecraft.

[Skip Intro]

159. How do you KNOW that there is no such thing as ESP?

How can you know that?

[BushOut06]

161. You can't prove or disprove something like that

Just because something can't be be disproven, doesn't mean it exists.

Show me ONE scientific study where someone has been able to consistently demonstrate ESP. Not a few scattered studies where a subject gets a disproportionate number of lucky guesses. If someone truly had ESP, they would pass such a test with 100% results, each and every time.

[Lucinda]

164. You are actually incorrect

"Why is it that every single time that so-called psychics and people with ESP are put under scientific scrutiny, they always fail?" <----- Is not correct. There are scores of scientific studies that prove otherwise.

[BushOut06]

171. Can you provide a link to one?

I'm aware that occasionally, someone will get a disproportionately high score on one of these tests. However, they've never been able to do this consistently. And if a person truly had ESP, they should be able to score 100% each and every time - yet that just doesn't happen. If it did, science would have to acknowledge that there is some form of mental communication that they just don't understand yet.

Show me one single article in a respected scientific or medical journal where a psychic has scored 100% with regularity, and where scientists have acknowledged that there is a "sixth sense".

[Lucinda]

206. Sorry for the delay in answering

I was onlty here briefly last night.

I am going to assume that you actually want info - even though you said "Show me one single article in a respected scientific or medical journal where a psychic has scored 100% with regularity" - which is going to be impossible. Show me anyone in any field who hits 100% at what they do. It doesn't happen.

Anyway, here are a few links to University scientific research projects, which link to their findings. The findings, of course, represent varying degrees of success.

University of Arizona - focuses on mediumship
http://veritas.arizona.edu/

University of Virginia
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/home.cfm

The PEAR Program at Princeton
(Data up at Princetom website but PEAR now works with IRCL)
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

There a others but this will give you a start.

Luc

[mondo joe]

172. Warning, just saying it's a scientific study doesn't make it science.

[XemaSab]

170. I think there could easily be aliens visiting us, ESP is entirely possible,

but ghosts... that's a bigger leap for me. :P

[BB1]

179. What's ESP again?

'cause i do believe in ufo's. Ghosts I don't know about, other than people 'who look like they've seen a ghost'.

I believe the US Government blew a hoax at Roswell. Getting everyone excited over a couple of 'being-funny' Airforce officers who pretend a UFO was shot down. Pfff, if they can make you believe in ufo's, they sure can make you believe 19 Saoudi cavemen currently residing in greater Tora Bora blew up two indestructible towers half a world away. But what's that ESP again?

[Basileus Basileon]

181. Extrasensory perception.

It's the belief that people are capable of perceiving things beyond that which the physical senses tell us. "Psychic" phenomena fall under this.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

182. ahhhh the arrogance...

if my mind cannot conceive it...it cannot exist...nay, it MUST not exist. That is what I see here...the arrogance of the human form...

sP

[BushOut06]

185. What about demons, werewolves, vampires, etc?

There are plenty of people who claim to have witnessed all sorts of activity. Should we simply accept everything that people claim to have experienced at face value, without trying to find a scientific explanation for it?

[The Straight Story]

186. I would love for science to help explain ghosts

instead of simply dismissing them as imagination.

[slowry]

189. The use science (aka your brain, hands, nose, etc.) to explain them. You're completely free to.

Science isn't some institution, like government, that people have no control over. Observe some ghosts, write down some of their properties, devise a way to measure their size, volume, color, heat, behavior, speed, sound, etc. -- anything you can think of. If you can't measure it by any current methods, devise new methods, or explain why it's impossible, without saying something like "it's from another dimension" (ie. by waving your hands and using fancy words).

Think of what an important figure you would become, if you could prove the true existence of ghosts. Maybe you could even find a way for us to communicate with them; we could learn a lot from the dead, I imagine.

That, or huff and puff about how "science" is some entity which spends most of its time trying to deter people from finding out the truth.

[BushOut06]

190. Science has a very good explanation for ghosts

Basically, it's all in your head. The human mind is capable of creating very lucid hallucinations, causing you to swear you saw something that wasn't there. There have been experiments where scientists subjected volunteers to various stimuli, and the subjects reported all sorts of bizarre experiences - seeing aliens, ghosts, demons, etc.

Occam's Razor still applies to "paranormal" activity.

[slowry]

191. Occam's Razor is just another tool. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, is all,

by saying "it's possible". I'm not saying that I actually expect a ghost-hunter to become a modern-day John Harrison -- just that it's no use whining about how "Science" is keeping them down, when the tools of science are, to a great extent, available to anyone who wishes to pursue some matter.

[BushOut06]

200. Well, technically I guess anything is possible...

But if you're going to allow for stuff like UFOs, ESP, and ghosts, then you have to be willing to allow for a whole lot of other things too - such as faith healing, Elvis still being alive, werewolves, etc.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

193. Not at all...

but just because we don't have the means of testing something does not mean that it CANNOT exist. I don't particularly believe vampires exist (at least not in the movie sense...) however, as I do not know all there is to be know, they COULD exist. But, I am not going to run around worried about vampires any more than I am going to worry that the moon is going to spontaneously lose cohesion and cease to exist...

sP

[slowry]

192. Real deep, Vinny. n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

194. thanks for making a proof of my point... n/t

[slowry]

198. You guys all say that. It's called "projection"; you anti-reality folk are the arrogant ones n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

205. how is it arrogant to accept that I don't know everything?

I don't understand that logic. I am not really asking you to believe anything...however, if you cannot admit that you really have no ability to KNOW with 100% certainty...then that makes you the arrogant one...no? I would love to hear your logic on this one.

I am not asking people to throw out scientific evidence that refutes something...THAT WOULD BE arrogant...everyday in science we are learning that things we THOUGHT were true and constant are just whiffs of imagination...and one day, something will be known to exist that is thought cannot exist today.

sP

[mondo joe]

195. Do you believe Benny Hinn really heals people? How about ex-gay

conversion therapy?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

196. no...not really

I believe that people that want to have a conversion experience (and who ELSE would go to Benny Hinn...well, I guess the entertainment value might be high) might just have one...not that Benny causes it. However, I do believe in a higher power, and could that higher power work through Benny Hinn? I would like to think no, but if I am going to be intellectually honest, I would have to say it COULD.

Look, there is possibility and probability. It is POSSIBLE that it could happen...however improbable.

sP

[mondo joe]

197. Thank you. And I agree, all things are possible, if only remotely. But

I also think that a culture that goes with its hunches and wishes over the preponderance of evidence is in trouble.

I further think a lot of people are making a lot of money off their victims with their made up shit about ghosts, UFOs, ESP, gay conversion and healing.

[Whisp]

201. Remote Viewing - movie: Suspect Zero

I found the subject absolutely fascinating - the extras on the DVD were as good as the movie.

basically being able to 'see' through someone else eyes.