Halx

One of the ideas behind the "paranoia" board is that things happen in this world that make a few believe, while the rest deny. Many don't care, but those who are skeptical need proof.

So what is proof? Is it first-hand experience? Is it photo evidence? Is it the word of your friends? Is it a signature? Can it ever exist?

My own take on it is that I'll never believe something I don't until I experience it first hand. I'm incredibly tough to convince and I like it that way.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

ShaniFaye

I would have to say a true skeptic is going to have to have a first hand experience and even then depending on the person that might not even be enough. There are thousands of pictures out there that skeptics love picking apart as much as some atheists love taking stabs at religion.

As far as a friend having an experience, the same thing would happen, they would find 100 reasons as to why it was something else going on that admit it might be real.

I have known a few people in my life that would have bet their lives it was all hokey, but then they had a personal experience that changed their minds to some degree.

I've had a few things happen that to me make it real (but I've believed in the paranormal since I was a child), but I'm sure a real skeptic would tear it apart as part as delusional.

I think it would also depend on what paranormal subject you're talking about as to a person degree of what they believe. My experiences have been strictly being visited by a lost loved one (my grandfather specifically). I've never seen a "ghost" no matter how many times I've been "ghost hunting" I've never caught photographic or voice evidence...but I have seen others that have that just go to deepen my belief.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Bill O'Rights

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding.

For some, a badly doctored image in the Weekly World News, is all that is needed. Others wouldn't believe in the werewolf that was chewing on their ass.
"Proof" is always going to be highly subjective, and extremely relative, when it comes to anything paranormal.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

mx5me

I'm with you, Halx. I can't really believe anything that I don't experience first hand. Skepticism is good and healthy, in my opinion, but can make for a hell of a tough time when you're trying to figure things out that you can't experience first hand. A la Wag the Dog, how are you ever supposed to know who to believe about what's going on in the world? At some point you have to believe something that you can build upon and form an opinion around, but it's awfully hard to tell a relatively honest source apart from all the others. So many things could be utterly false, or some shade of gray, and how would be ever know?

Astrocloud

When I was in college I would frequently have to write proofs for theorums. A "proof" is the logical consequence using deductive logic. If inductive logic is used then it has to be shown for every instance of the statement. To disprove a general statement -all you need is one example to disprove the generalization.

What all this means is that "Proof" in the real (non mathematical) world is hard to find. Sometimes what seems to be true is actually just true in a limited circumstance.

People in general are very illogical. They like their truths in neat little statements. Sometimes the truth is more complicated than what is initially thought. Sometimes the truth changes over time and sometimes, our perception of truth changes.

I suppose all this pondering really relies on the supposition that there is something outside myself which is consistant and actually exists. Furthermore it is assumed that we can really know something about it.

In the end -outside of mathematical proof I don't really know the nature of the world and nobody does. David Hume said it best:

SaltPork

I'm on board with you Halx. If I can't experience it first hand, then it's not real to me. Things like UFO's, ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster,etc. are nothing more than an active imagination. Though I believe it's possible that those things exist, I would need more than a fuzzy picture or amazing story to believe any of it.

Send me to your haunted houses people, come on...bring it!!

__________________
It was like that when I got here....I swear.

Willravel

Proof is simple: it's evidence to establish the true nature of something. For example, we can prove that 1 + 1 = 2. I can take two single groupings of an item and combine them in order to create a grouping of two, as proof. I can offer mathematical proof, as well:
The basic idea is to establish what we know, and then allow our knowledge to grow from that point. What we know can only be established through precedence of perception, be that visual, auditory, tough, smell, or taste. We can locate and test patterns in nature in order to establish it's nature.

Dilbert1234567

2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

LOL well played.

filtherton

I find it plenty useful to assume that some things are predictable, that some things aren't, that other things are predictably unpredictable and that some things are unknowable. Based on these classifications i try to draw conclusions from experiences that i've had.

I find the concept of proof in an abstract sense to be rather off-putting. You need a structure in which to hang the proof; a set of assumptions. Then if you want to prove these assumptions valid you need a larger set of assumptions on which to hang this super-proof. It goes on forever, so i think the general idea is that you only do it as much as you need to.

Darth_Kettch

When it comes to the paranormal, I'd imagine I'd be pretty hard to convince even if it did happen to me. Hypothetically speaking, I haven't experienced anything paranormal, to my knowledge.

Then again, in scientific fields, I happily accept the general consensus without too much of a hassle.

Sticky

I think that we are talking about anything in general, not specificaly the paranormal.

I one person shows you what they believe is undeniable proof about an issue, do you believe it? If not then your idea of proof is different.
In fact you may even believe you have proof that their proof is full of holes. Will they buy it?

This is why we have threads on the board that go on forever.

As for what is proof for me. I think it depends on what I am trying to prove.

If I am trying to prove a result with testing at work. Then I will only come to a conclusion once I have proved the result through all the testing.

If however, we are talking about a theory that is posted on this baord I usually start off from a point of plausibility and need to be convinced beyond that point with evidence from people or sources I trust.
Confirmation from people or sources I trust do not mnecessarily make it true but it definately makes it more plausible in my perception.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman