Debunking Ouija Boards.

solodroid

solodroid

Member
Messages
212
label said:
I cannot tell you how tired I am of all this scepticism. Why even have a paranormal website if we cannot discuss paranormal activity without 6 PHDs? I am still new to the forum but I think there is an ignore function that you can use to ignore me and continue on with your life as if I never even existed.

Sadly there are enough bad people on both sides of the fence that is purely in it for the money and power and abuse and twist facts to fit them.

Truth is whatever you accept to be the truth and that is normally the end of it. I say keep an open mind and find the truth and if we are lucky we may even stumble across something significant and spectacular. But if one limit one's scope then things will be missed. And it is actually why science is there in the first place.

As for me telling you who to phone for studies? Firstly the people that share with me there research will not be happy about it secondly there is a scientific paper dedicated to new discoveries All you have to do is Google it.

So what happens now? You decide if I stay or leave. Because if there is no place for us to share think and trough ideas around then feel free to terminate my account here.

I was hoping that one could come here type down what is on your mind about the subject at hand and get insight of how others think. But if it is scientific study you want ALL the time and just facts and proof and qualified opinion then so be it.
Click to expand...
Don't let one persons skepticism ruin this forum for you. We are more than happy to tell each others ideas and stories. We would be very sad if one person on the forum made you leave. For every one skeptic here there are 10 believers who have your back.
 
Sanyam Deshi

Sanyam Deshi

Junior Member
Messages
100
label said:
The point I am making is how can you dismiss something if you never experienced it?
Click to expand...
That is quite the ironic argument. I, myself, do not believe in completely dismissing things either, as there are many possibilities for every unexplained circumstances.

Here, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that people are denied the credibility of having skepticism toward Ouija boards unless they have experienced the unusual circumstances themselves. So basically, experience = credibility. The reason why this argument hurts itself is because one who experiences the unusual circumstance does not know what the cause of the situation itself. Therefore, have you truly "experienced" it?

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that anyone who posts in this topic will be able to provide evidence that unusual Ouija board activities aren't caused by supernatural phenomenon. I'm also moderately sure that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence in favor of the supernatural never rules it out completely. The only evidence that we may ever have is the personal experiences of Ouija board users, but this still leaves out the cause of movement and it makes a big assumption that nobody else that you were using it with was trying to trick you.

In conclusion, people are have every right to express doubt without first-hand experience with a Ouija board, even if it doesn't provide for a productive argument.
 
Ayasano

Ayasano

Member
Messages
407
Sanyam Deshi said:
I'm also moderately sure that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence in favor of the supernatural never rules it out completely.
Click to expand...

It's difficult, but not impossible, because there's a very fine line between evidence of absence and absence of evidence.

This quote sums it up quite well:

"If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed..."
—J.P. Moreland and W.L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
 
Sanyam Deshi

Sanyam Deshi

Junior Member
Messages
100
Ayasano said:
Sanyam Deshi said:
I'm also moderately sure that it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, because the lack of evidence in favor of the supernatural never rules it out completely.
Click to expand...

It's difficult, but not impossible, because there's a very fine line between evidence of absence and absence of evidence.

This quote sums it up quite well:

"If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed..."
—J.P. Moreland and W.L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, this very quote refers to having the right to believe that something doesn't exist, but not having the right to declare something non-existential. Even though my prior post brings up the idea of it being impossible to disprove certain ideas, obviously I know this doesn't apply to every situation. Indeed, I can say for sure that there aren't any elephants in my bedroom and nobody is going to object to that statement, but if someone proposes an idea that would involve another entire dimension that completely exceeds the findings of modern-day physics, can such a statement be denied? This is a big gray area, and I do not have the solution, myself.

As a side comment, to whom it may concern, I originally posted on this thread that I don't believe in supernatural Ouija board circumstances. I later posted that although I have the right to hold this belief, everyone else also has the right to believe in the power of the Ouija board, thus supporting what most of you believers are saying. Nobody seems happy with this conclusion, so this gives me the impression that most of you have a "you're with me or against me" attitude. I just felt like pointing this out. I am fascinated with the psychology of arguments, and I believe I am witnessing group polarization firsthand.
 

Top