Why are people only willing to 'believe what they see' and not the other way around?

"Believing what you see" can be a bit perilous. After all, I can "see" magicians performing the seemingly impossible from the perspective of the audience. But if I go backstage, I can "see" from a different vantage point and it no longer appears to be an impossible feat. I can understand how it's really done. You should not always believe what you see, but observation is always necessary and is the first step to understanding anything.

The other way around, "seeing what you believe", is pretty much deliberate self-deception. Another way of saying this is that perception is a function of preconception. One who does this has already made up their mind and then interprets any data, even conflicting data, in a way to make it consistent with these beliefs. This is obviously not scientific nor is this a method of investigation that is going to reveal the truth about the natural world. It's religious, not scientific.

I personally don't need to witness anything I deem paranormal in order to accept the claim that this paranormal phenomenon is real. But I do need enough solid, scientific, repeatable, testable evidence such that acceptance of the claim is more reasonable than not. This is a tall order when the claim is rather extraordinary and unlikely. Most claims in science aren't all that unlikely and usually have a good deal of supporting evidence. Not so for the paranormal (else there would not be a para- prefix).. I have no problem with not understanding how things work. As a scientist I am forced to admit that I understand very little of how things work :) In science, it is often the case that the observation is made first before a hypothesis is put forward to explain it.

Well, hard core skeptics wont even believe if they do see it. They would prefer to say that they were hallucinating...or that there was something suddenly wrong with their eyes...or their brain....or that it was a fluke.

From what I gather, the only way that they will believe is if it can happen ten times in a row in a controlled setting and can be examined and documented in that way.

I can understand that...that is how a lot of things are measured and understood...

However, I am a spiritual person who has had spiritual experiences and I know that the spirit world doesn't abide by our limited knowledge of how things work. I know that the 'not knowing how things work' can be disturbing for some but I don't really have a problem with it. Some people do.

Eh. I'm kind of with TR on this one -- believing everything you see isn't always a good idea. I don't always believe everything I see; then again, I don't always believe everything I don't see either.

Here is a thought to ponder and maybe help you with your question. When media broadcast switches entirely to digital -- will the people who own analog no longer exist?

Or to step it down a notch:

When everybody went from vinyl to CD -- ok from CD to MP3 -- did the people who only have CDs now no longer exist?

No ma'am. You are not like a deer in headlights. Ha ha.

You are absolutely right!

In order to explain that, it would require some education on your part and the people who do not know the physical layout of the brain and the eyes, the optic nerves, and the visual cortex.

And physics, chemistry, biology, and all.

Mathematics, philosophy, and history.

It takes alot of knowledge to see what you believe.

But with much knowledge comes much sorrow.

Edit: "Do not prevent the swine from threshing out the corn.''

Old Biblical principle.

The basics of scientific method is to remove human error, biases and preconceived beliefs. That is why anecdotes don't cut it. We know full well that seeing is not believing. It is subject to human error and is not empirical evidence. Ever seen Chris Angel levitate above buildings?

And that is why scientific method is the best method we have to get to the truth of a claim or hypothesis. It is also self correcting based on new evidence, and the rigors of peer review. Thus it is prudent to trust the best science.

And as soon as it is applied properly to paranormal claims, as already said, the phenomenon disappears.

Edit:

Hellevafella, your anti-science comments are an agument from ad hominem - a logical fallacy. Also, while science has contributed to a lot of our problems, I think you'll find that it will be science that saves humanity in the end. Science is certainly our best chance.

Edit:

Hellavafella, personal attacks will get you nowhere with me. People usually resort to them when they have a lack of proper argument. Rather hypocritical too, your anti-science stance, while you sit there typing on a computer, using the internet, satellites etc.

Edit:

Minerva, the university studies you point to including Sheldrake are not supported by minstream science, do not follow scientific method or survice peer review. It is pseudoscience, and those with scientific literacy recognize this. And I can assure you that Randi and his "followers" are not "pseudoskeptics", that would be the last thing they are. Randi almost singlehandedly started the skeptic movement in the world as it is today.

We can test those other things. I am willing to accept that Australia exists, even though I haven't been there, because I can always buy a plane ticket and see for myself. But the paranormal? No way to check. No evidence at all. Really, do you just accept everything everyone says with no filter at all? If so, I have some nice ocean-side property I'll sell you for $20.

EDIT: I'm a scientist. Thanks for the review of how science works - but I don't need it. Every time someone tried to use science to test the paranormal, the effect disappeared. Which is why the vast majority of scientists and universities have given up on researching it.

You know what's really interesting? I know I've got a "gift" that apparently most people don't have. But I also know that I've got that "gift" bc I *chose* to spend years undoing all the layers of denial that I was systematically taught from childhood... ie It's ok honey, that boy didn't mean to hurt you... yes he did.

We all come equipped with the ability to see and know things - we just get so wound up in everyday life that all that gets drowned out.

And now that I have achieved the knowing that I have, I could really care less what anyone says. The more they deny it, the further away from their true self I know they are.

Well, ERI is wrong. University of Arizona, Florida, Princeton, and many Universities overseas have done and are conducting major paranormal experiements. Look up the telepathic experiments being done with Rupert Sheldrake (a CAMBRIDGE grad.). It's silly that someone like ERI tries to say this is ALL bunk, it's simply not. And RANDI backed out of a challenge with Sheldrake.

People are not willing to believe what is smacking them in the face because they are highly egotisical. Anyone who promotes and follows Randi falls into the category of psuedo skeptic. Google the term.

I am not going to give you some long rambling answer all you need to know is these egg head scientist are going to destroy humanity soon enough and we will all find out if the paranormal exists or not.

Why are you talking to me... you getting all para coz you look like an egg?

Listen baldy my first comment was not directed at you or anyone in particular although we can all see why you might feel that way. I don't need to prove my statement or need empirical evidence come to that. I read every ones answers and thought what a bunch of egg heads who gives a flying if you are all scientists.

It's all a load of bunkum the drivel that flows from your North and South you are spouting from the well of ignorance, you need evidence this, proof that, The paranormal does exist I have experienced it first hand and before you go singling people out because they don't agree with you or you think they are personally attacking you, mind yourself before someone really does. You can take that last comment anyway you like as no doubt you will... In future don't talk to me unless I ask a question or reply to one of yourn...

I bet your short too, a little baldy monkey man who thinks everyone is out to get him, don't forget to lock up tonight seeing as all them people out there want to get you or personally attack you...Muppet

When it comes to the paranormal, I've always noticed that many people are willing to believe because they HAVE seen. And so those who have not had these things demonstrated for them and have not had their mainstream media tell them it's real are understandably skeptical. They should be, as should anyone who has not had an experience (and even if you have had an experience, you must not stop being skeptical). However, the way they belittle the testimony and academic exploration of the paranormal definitely says a lot about their limited reductionist thinking. Their intollerance and arrogance are actually limitiing their own lives and has nothing to do with reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Typical response is the woman above saying there is no way to check the paranormal, and I say YES THERE IS, you just aren't doing it. No, the non physical world (atoms are mostly empty space afterall) is a real problem for current science.

http://amnap.blogspot.com/

"The person who says it is not possible should not interrupt the person doing it."

Ancient Chinese Proverb