Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through May 12, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru May 2002 » Ouija Boards - The Real Shit? » Archive through May 12, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Artemis
Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 9:38 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

> in the case of Ouija boards, because they don't work

Depends what you mean by "work".

Will they pull a plow? No.

Will they behave in a way that satisfies the scientist man, who only believes what he can prove and can only prove what he believes? Maybe not.

Will they summon an incubus who then decides he's going to stick around for a while? Most certainly. Oh, you don't believe in incubi? Probably because he hasn't been in YOUR bed! We have a phrase where I work, it serves in a remarkable number of situations:

"If it was up your ass, you'd know it!"

The ONLY fact necessary for Ouija boards to be as consistent and understandable as a clock radio is the fact that there are things in the universe we don't yet understand.
Anatomist
Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 3:47 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"The scientific community afterall is as a rule ultra-conservative and has vested its interests and tradition to protect."

This is true, but not a valid point in favor of stuff like Weegee boards, Creationism, or chiropractic. These things don't work, don't make sense, and sport elaborate traditions and justifications and excuses for not being provable or explainable in a normal scientific context - explanations which usually contradict explanations which do make sense and have evidential support. If you have a taste for weird stuff that lies outside the scope of current science, this is in the wrong direction. Instead of believing in flimsy theories with no evidence, take a look into some of the evidence that doesn't fit the theories. My dad is always showing me all this crazy archaeology shit: 5000 year-old mummies from South America, giant 10000 year-old rock pictures made on the ground that can only be viewed from airplanes and show detailed astronomical knowledge, huge, precision stonework and architecture many thousands of years old that could not be made with any technology available today, etc... If you looked hard enough, you could find similar anomalous evidence and contradictions plaguing other branches of science and other evidence-based knowledge schemes. There isn't much you can do about these mysteries but scratch your head and wonder though... In short, your point about scientific conservatism is true, but it's an argument for more uncertainty, not less.

K.
Pikkle
Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 12:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

oh fucking god, the drugs are working!!!!!!!!!!
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 12:50 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

So Blackjack I presume you can produce evidence for every single aspect of your life that you believe in. How do you have the time to do anything while you are gathering all this evidence and testing it? But you must do this because to accept something without doing so would surely make you superstitious. And of course if it is beyond the range of normal human sensory perception it cannot exist because of course mundane human senses are omnnipotent and nothing exists beyond the information these senses can gather.

Anyway evidence has been gathered to support mediumship and other ideas not currently in vogue with the bulk of the scientific community.

http://survivalscience.50megs.com/

No doubt you can always write such evidence off as psuedoscience, or not in keeping with other evidence that demonstrates the contrary. The scientific community afterall is as a rule ultra-conservative and has vested its interests and tradition to protect.

If you look hard enough you will find evidence for almost anything. We hugely overestimate the ability of modern science and its methods to determine what does and does not exist or occur.

Hobgoblin
Mvario
Posted on Sunday, May 12, 2002 - 12:47 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

scarier than a ouija board:

The Haunted Paintbrush!!!!!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1727602564
Pikkle
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 11:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Fucking don't ever snort morphine sulfite!!!!!!!! OOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 10:37 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Then why brand those less cynical than yourself as superstitious?



Well, in the case of Ouija boards, because they don't work. Straight up, they've been tested again and again and fail to produce anything more accurate or comprehensable than could be produced by random chance, even when being operated by "believers".

More generally, I brand as superstitious those who believe in thing a) for which they can or will produce no evidence, b) which are not compatible with the bulk of evidence that DOES exist, and c) are believed in not because there is any evidence to support them, but because of traditional, or because the idea fits into an untestable model.

My skepticism and demand for proof are directly proportional to the degree to which the idea is contradicted by readily availible evidence. If you tell me that you think that A. afarensis was not a direct precursor of modern man, I will be willing to accept that as a possibility, since the evidence on the subject is pretty scant. However, if you try to tell me that man is in no way genetically related to the African apes, you had better be prepared to produce a shitload of evidence to support this, since the VAST bulk of evidence indicates otherwise. If you can't produce the data, or, as is the case with Creation "Science", claim that the mechanisms involved can't be tested, I'll call you a kook.



Quote:

Quantum theory has already observed things that are not measurable, like electrons hopping around ie disappearing from one place and then reappearing somewhere else, changing the charge of once closely knit electrons, then changing the charge of one and the one in the space three labs over changes charge as well.



That is something of a cop out. Heisenburg's principle is very specific to the to the inversely proportional relationship between the amount of data you can gather about an electron's location and its momentum. You can measure one or the other pretty accurately by various means, but not at the same time, and the more accurate the measurement of one is, the less accurate the other will be. The entire science of quantum mechanics is about creating mathematical models which allow us to predict quantum phenomena with pretty astounding accuracy. We may not KNOW the position of an electron is a particular system at a given moment, for instance, but we can predict the fairly small range it will occupy 99.9%. And you can test this, and it WORKS. An AWFUL lot of modern technology relies on the accuracy of quantum mechanical models, and a HUGE amount of research is going into testing these models and improving their accuracy.


Quote:

Agrippa and Al Ghazalhi were right, science is just a silly as superstition, and repeatability doesn't make for truth...



No, but repeatablity makes for reliability. Again and again, I have said this isn't about what is absolutely True(tm). It is about the fact that some things are far, far more likely than others. For human beings to function they MUST accept that, while they cannot be certain, that it is FAR more likely that gravity will continue to work, that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that fire will continue to hurt, than it is that these things will suddenly change. And it is FAR more likely that Ouija boards are superstitious bullshit than it is that they are tapping into deep unseen forces which for some reason don't work any better than random chance.

I'm playing the averages and going with the surest bets. Like I said, my side is winning by leaps and bounds.
Artemis
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 5:24 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

> Is it www.museumoftalkingboards.com that you are
> speaking of?

According to Head it is. He reminded me today that this is the link I sent him some time back - although I haven't checked the site lately, it had pictures of some really cool boards and some reasoned discussion of them.
Albertcamus
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 4:27 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

sorry to interrupt this vacuum of wisdom but can some one tell me in as few words possible how to post an image?i have read the directions but it doesnt work,i use IE 6.0..thanks
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 3:31 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Like I said, if Ouija boards work, we should be able to understand why, eventually."

Then why brand those less cynical than yourself as superstitious? Just because we don't understand why something works now that doesn't mean that those who hold their own opinions on how they work are superstitious fools simply because their view is at odds with current scientific thinking. Some day we probably will be able to explian (using 'evidence') phenomena that we currently cannot. But until then it is arrogant to assume that such explanations will naturally discount any 'paranormal' explanations.

Hobgoblin
Pikkle
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 3:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Ya'all wanna see my magnetic abdomatic???????
Chrysippvs
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 3:06 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Like I said, if Ouija boards work, we should be able to understand why, eventually."


I am not so sure we can measure some things. Quantum theory has already observed things that are not measurable, like electrons hopping around ie disappearing from one place and then reappearing somewhere else, changing the charge of once closely knit electrons, then changing the charge of one and the one in the space three labs over changes charge as well. Things like spooky action at a distance are, so far, act in the very defiance of measurement.

I am weary of making universal claims when we have at best 5 faulty senses, a language that can't express ideas in a non-dualist framework, and a host of strongly pejorative cultural and physiological presumptions already brought to any lab.

Agrippa and Al Ghazalhi were right, science is just a silly as superstition, and repeatability doesn't make for truth...

Should we stop science, of course not. But science can only give us truths (just like religion, philosophy, etc...) only a gnosis, a synthesis, can give us Truth.

- J
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 2:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I see where you are coming from. The problem I have with that kind of thinking is summed up by the word 'outrageous.'

I know I don't need to go into a blow by blow of all the things that have been called 'outrageous' and flat out impossible by most of the scientific community that are now working to make these words appear before you.

The trouble is that the world IS outrageous. The use you are putting that word to can be defined as 'doesn't seem to fit in with my model of reality real well at all.'

But that's such a slippery fucking slope. Everyone's model is flawed- you know that going in.

Your contention that the homeopathy thing is because of a chemical reaction you haven't observed is a good base to start from- but it's just a hypothesis. For all you actually *know* it could be magic, or sooper seekrit alien nanotechnology, or shit, placebo effect.

So I think it's best to start from what seems likliest, but if you ever catch yourself going 'but that just CAN'T be the answer, magic (or bigfoot or muons or coelocanths)' right there your train of thought just pulled into the wrong station.

Reality defies logic- so keep your logic as fluid as possible and rule out nothing, especially not out of hand. Not to say looking for bigfoot as the source of your overturned garbage BEFORE you look for a stray dog. But don't just chalk up the bigfoot theory to impossible and forget to try that avenue when the dog thing doesn't pan out.
Albertcamus
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 2:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

i read that book "The Living Fossil" about the coelocanth,that was very interesting.
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 1:32 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Like a coelocanth?



Science makes mistakes. That is part of the process. The reason I'll say "bullshit" to outrageous claims is that, if we are going to accomplish anything, rather than inellectually castrating ouself with absolute agnosticism, we have to conclude that those ideas for which there is significant evidence are more likely to produce accurate predictive data than those for which there is little or no evidence.

There are a great many ideas which have failed, under repeated testing, to produce significant evidence in their favor. This doesn't mean they are false, but it is a strong indication that they are much less likely to be true than those ideas which have been supported by observable data time and again.

Recently I called bullshit on homeopathy in this forum, and produced some evidence to support the position that homeopathy has failed under scientific scrutiny. Someone then produced a reference to a stuy which indicated that, at least with a few specific circumstances, there was some evidence to support the idea that highly-diluted solutions could produce chemical reactions beyond what would be anticipated from the concentrations involved. I do not deny this out of hand. I would like to see more data. IF additional data support the hypothesis, it would NOT be because there was some sort of magic going on, but because there was a chemical process taking place which we had failed to properly account for. The goal would be to understand the nature of the chemical reaction so that it might be applied more effectively, not to simply assume that it can't be known.
Rimbaud
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 1:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Artemis,

Is it www.museumoftalkingboards.com that you are speaking of?
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 1:16 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

You seem to believe that until something is proved it does not exist.



That is the most absurd twist of semantics I've seen in some time. My position is that if something exists, or, more to the point, if it interacts with other matter and energy, it will produce observable changes in that matter or energy. I am more than willing to accept that these changes may be beyond our ability to observe at this time, but the goal should be to ATTEMPT to find a way to observe and understand them, not to simply say "I had this experience and I'm just going to accept it," let alone to assume that one understands WITHOUT attempting to observe.

The evidence of the shape of the earth was ALWAYS there, and, in fact, more than a few people fgured it out long before it was generally accepted. The reason it took so long to be accepted was that most people refused to look for evidence, to attempt to observe and find patterns and understand.

Like I said, if Ouija boards work, we should be able to understand why, eventually.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 12:36 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Which would prove or disprove the assumption that whatever it is moving the spooky piece of plastic is able to see and interperet the letters on it's own, without a human brain doing the computational labor.

Not whether or not the something is there.

Of course, you aren't doing an experiment on a planarian here- so you can't count on it to co-operate and not deliberately fuck up your experiment.

I think what Hobby is trying to say here is that if you say you saw Bigfoot, and he says 'bullshit' right off the bat, it means that he is assuming his sense of reality superior to your own, and calling you a liar in the bargain. Better he should try to find out what happened before making such assumptions.

A much more scientific view, if you wanna get technical, than 'there ain't no sech thing cause everybody knows there ain't.'

Right. Like a coelocanth?
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 10:35 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Puffin,

"If you take blindfolded participants and a board with a different letter arrangement you would get nonsense."

Then go ahead and try it, Ouija boards and blindfolds are easy enough to get hold of.

Hobgoblin
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 10:32 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Camus,

"if i claimed to have seen bigfoot,are you going to compell yourself to concluded there are bigfoots running around.?"

No, but neither would I say that you were mistaken in what you saw (or thought you saw). You could be right, you could be wrong. How could I know, I wasn't there? You'd probably be in a stronger position than me (if of course you were being honest about what you saw or thought you saw) your mind percieved something while I just sat on the sidelines full of cynicism and perceiving nothing. Afterall it's experience that counts.

Hobgoblin
Albertcamus
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 9:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

ignorance and fear,now that is dangerous..
Verawench
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 9:25 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Ouija boards aren't dangerous. Now, our minds...
I_B_Puffin
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 9:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Ouija Boards are toys.

People guide it either conciously or subconsciously there is absolutley nothing mystical about it. If you take blindfolded participants and a board with a different letter arrangement you would get nonsense.
Larsbogart
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 7:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"that you know so absent from such discussion.."
could you please repost and insert an "a" after absent?
"that you know so absenta from such discussion"
Artemis
Posted on Saturday, May 11, 2002 - 6:13 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Wow, first time I lay eyes on this thread, and it's already been vandalized, drifted off topic by 11ty-seven posts, etc.

To answer the ghost hunting canine's question, which almost nobody else has:

> What do you guys think?

I think you don't want one in your house and are better off not having anything to do with them.

> Any experiences...

Enough to back up my first answer. I've told Head about it in some detail; maybe he relayed it to you. I also told him about a Witchboard museum website with many stunningly beautiful boards, but I don't have the bookmark handy. As works of art, they're fine. As portals, or psychic telegraphs, or whatever else they are, they're dangerous.

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page