Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

If I wasn’t a skeptic I might keep jousting verbally with MR forever and not get anywhere. Something didn’t feel right. I did a little research, found what I was looking for and I learned some things. He’s not kidding about being a magical realist.

Not magic like we might imagine happening, the real magic is the introduction of strange bizarre elements into a realistic setting. It can be paranormal material, incorporated and accepted into the real world where people consider it normal and commonplace. It’s a literary genre, fairly common I would think. I think the real magic starts when people listen to these folks and begin to believe things that go bump in the night like ghosts, demons and other weird claims are the real deal. Above all, no proofs required.

I don’t think he believes everything but he can pretend he does because he probably thinks he’s making a statement on the human condition or some psychology. ‘Pretend’ is the magical realist mantra in my books. Did I say phony earlier? I still stand by it. Is it a lie when a story comes from it? MR probably thinks he’s an artist, immune from criticism.

The full quote is: "Seeing is believing, but feeling is the truth." - Thomas Fuller
You obviously have a lot of feelings involved in what you believe is the truth. Hence the pages of you incessantly repeating your unsupported claims.
Knowledge and belief are two different things.

Beliefs, are those things that we personally understand to be true but may not actually be True. As such, our opinions, personal testimony, and anecdotal evidence all fall within this category. Belief is not a choice. Belief is an involuntary action occurring after our own internal standard for evidence has been met. In other words, belief is the necessary result of being convinced. It is important to recognize that our own internal standard of evidence is not equivalent to scientific (actual) evidence. Lastly, knowledge is a subset of belief.

Knowledge is defined as the small fraction of our beliefs that actually meet the scientific standard of evidence. As such, knowledge represents the small fraction of our beliefs that are actually True. Therefore knowledge is by definition “True belief(s)”.- https://medium.com/perspectivepublicatio...909520a265

So seeing is believing is not the basis of knowledge. Knowledge requires more evidence that verifies a belief as true. So you're even ignorant of this simple distinction.

If you have a video of a child being taken against their will, without any other information (like a report of a missing child) you cannot actually assume an abduction. Since you don't know any of the people involved, it's actually more likely the child's own relative dealing with a willful, rebellious child. All you can do is make unfounded assumptions, just as you do with ghost/UFO videos & pictures. With no other information, you couldn't even say the calf died. After all, why wasn't evidence of a dead calf found when the trail cam footage was retrieved? Aliens abducting cows? 9_9

You repeating the absolutely weakest forms of evidence without any corroboration of any single event just demonstrates you don't comprehend scientific, or even legal, criteria for evidence. Just more argument from ignorance. No independent verification means it's not knowledge. Again, another in the long list of simple English words you don't comprehend.

Quote:

Quote:The existence of what? Magic sky light? Hitting what? A giant bird that doesn't flap it's wings?

LOL So if we have a video showing lightning hitting a plane, we wouldn't be able to see it even if we didn't know what it was? That's insane. The video would be undeniable proof of some nameless phenomena we haven't studied yet. And it would be solid proof it exists.

LEARN TO READ, MORON!
I just said "magic sky light" and "giant bird." That literally means you can see them. So this is a moron's straw man.
Again, it wouldn't be proof of anything, as you wouldn't know what it was. For all you could possibly know, it could be Hollywood magic, you credulous dumbass.
If you'd never seen a wolf and see a video of one, you have no evidence or knowledge to distinguish that from really good CGI.
Apparently, you don't even understand what an argument from ignorance is. No wonder you use it so much.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. - wiki

You even admitted that you don't know what one is: "while we may not know exactly what a ghost is..." You use an argument from ignorance to shift the burden of your own claims, by asserting "Unless proven to be faked." IOW, you claim ghosts must exist because there is no evidence they don't.

the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies... Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". - wiki

You only ever have the weakest forms of evidence without any corroboration.
Contrast that with the null hypothesis... which in this case is the default assumption that there is no relationship between these videos, pictures, etc. and some unknown thing called a "ghost." The onus is on the positive claim, and that is where you are the only one making an argument from ignorance.
See, I'm not even saying ghosts don't exist. As I've repeatedly reminded you, for years now, that I believe souls exist independently of physical bodies. So it would be contradictory to believe in souls but not ghosts... which are most commonly thought to be the same thing.
I'm only saying your so-called "evidence" doesn't establish anything resembling knowledge (verified true belief). It's just quasi-religious faith.
So you are the only one making arguments from ignorance here.
You also don't know what reproducibility is.

Reproducibility refers to the ability of a researcher to duplicate the results of a prior study using the same materials and procedures as were used by the original investigator. - https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/c...ducibility

Kettle logic (a fallacy) of a bunch of disparate videos, pictures, and anecdotal accounts is not "the same materials and procedures."
If the same location repeats the same phenomena, why can't we get any actual scientific evidence? You know, evidence that would actually contribute to knowledge.
Video doesn't prove anything, because there's no such thing as proof in science. Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. Video might be convincing, but that is purely subjective and doesn't make it verified true belief. You don't even understand what the word "proof" means.

I never asserted how anything was actually done in any video, because there's no way I could know... just like there's no way you can know what happened in the video they edited out or was not film. If you could read, you'd see that I only offered plausible explanations that fit within what we actually do have knowledge of. LEARN TO READ, DIPSHIT. I never even said there could have been a real boy. Even that was your own straw man. Go ahead, go see for yourself, illiterate moron.

Quote:Did I say phony earlier? I still stand by it.

You've obviously put a lot of thought into that conclusion. What is this? The 5th time you said it?
It's like when Dorothy kept repeating with her eyes closed "There's no place like home". Click your ruby slippers all you want Zin. I ain't goin nowhere.

(May 18, 2025 06:16 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Did I say phony earlier? I still stand by it.

You've obviously put a lot of thought into that conclusion. What is this? The 5th time you said it?
It's like when Dorothy kept repeating with her eyes closed "There's no place like home". Click your ruby slippers all you want Zin. I ain't goin nowhere.

Not expecting you to go anywhere. Now that I know what a magical realist is predisposed to do, I couldn’t care less. You’re just another guy doing his job. It’s just getting harder to separate the truth from the BS these days. To those who believe your codswallop, I don’t feel sorry for you. Only advice I can give to MR minions is to ask questions and in this case …. Question the answers.

Codswallop... there's a great word.

Quote:The full quote is: "Seeing is believing, but feeling is the truth." - Thomas Fuller
You obviously have a lot of feelings involved in what you believe is the truth. Hence the pages of you incessantly repeating your unsupported claims.

I haven't claimed anything other than what the videos clearly show and describe as happening. That is the supreme value of video evidence. It pretty much speaks for itself.

Quote:So seeing is believing is not the basis of knowledge. Knowledge requires more evidence that verifies a belief as true. So you're even ignorant of this simple distinction.

Everything we know about the world comes to us thru our senses. From things we see and hear directly, from videos and photos and illustrations, from the descriptions of others, and from text about a topic. Fundamentally this is all based on totally believing those senses--that what we see and hear is a true depiction of reality. That's why videos are so good at showing us what is real. Because seeing the video is as good as being there ourselves.

Quote:If you have a video of a child being taken against their will, without any other information (like a report of a missing child) you cannot actually assume an abduction. Since you don't know any of the people involved, it's actually more likely the child's own relative dealing with a willful, rebellious child.

A video of a child walking alone and then being grabbed and involuntarily put into a van that stops beside them would clearly be an abduction. A video of a man punching a woman is irrefutable evidence of assault. A video of a kid throwing a brick into a store window is irrefutable evidence of vandalism. Once again the video flawlessly shows us what happened.

Quote:All you can do is make unfounded assumptions, just as you do with ghost/UFO videos & pictures. With no other information, you couldn't even say the calf died. After all, why wasn't evidence of a dead calf found when the trail cam footage was retrieved? Aliens abducting cows?

There is no question the calf was attacked by cougar. That is what the video establishes. It requires no further information to confirm it.

Quote:I just said "magic sky light" and "giant bird." That literally means you can see them. So this is a moron's straw man. Again, it wouldn't be proof of anything, as you wouldn't know what it was. For all you could possibly know, it could be Hollywood magic, you credulous dumbass.

It would be proof that something unknown happened to that plane that was caught on video. And a simple check on who took the video would eliminate any Hollywood conspiracy theories.

Quote:Apparently, you don't even understand what an argument from ignorance is. No wonder you use it so much. Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance, is an informal fallacy where something is claimed to be true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. - wiki

That's what I just said idiot. Go back and read it for yourself.

Quote:You even admitted that you don't know what one is: "while we may not know exactly what a ghost is..." You use an argument from ignorance to shift the burden of your own claims, by asserting "Unless proven to be faked." IOW, you claim ghosts must exist because there is no evidence they don't.

Nope..I claim ghosts exist because there is irrefutable evidence for their existence. I also say the videos are not fake because skeptics can't prove they are faked. Why should I not require the same standard of evidence for their fakeness as I do for their existence? If you are claiming they are faked you must have some reason for claiming that? Just tell us what that is.

Quote:You only ever have the weakest forms of evidence without any corroboration.

Videos are always powerful forms of evidence establishing exactly what happened and who was involved. And the videos I post are always corroborated by the videographer's testimony about taking it. Just like the three I've posted here.

Quote:See, I'm not even saying ghosts don't exist.

LOL So you're saying they may very well exist just that videos of them are always fake. Explain the logic there...

Quote:Reproducibility refers to the ability of a researcher to duplicate the results of a prior study using the same materials and procedures as were used by the original investigator. - https://datamanagement.hms.harvard.edu/c...ducibility

So all those instances of scientists and researchers using videos of recorded events and phenomena and creatures never seen before that I listed are all useless because they can't be repeated in a lab? That's ridiculous. Videos are relied on all the time to show us what actually happened. The 911 videos are good examples of this. There is never any need to repeat the video to confirm it.

Quote:Video doesn't prove anything, because there's no such thing as proof in science. Proof only exists in mathematics and logic. Video might be convincing, but that is purely subjective and doesn't make it verified true belief. You don't even understand what the word "proof" means.

Proof is simply showing that something is the case. It happens everyday with videos and with our own senses. 100 %. All the time. I see a dog in the yard, and I have 100% proof of the existence of that dog. The dog is recorded on my ring camera, and again I have 100% proof of the existence of the dog. Video IS proof whether you like it or not.

Quote:I never asserted how anything was actually done in any video, because there's no way I could know... just like there's no way you can know what happened in the video they edited out or was not film.

Ok so now you are NOT claiming that it was hoaxed. That's great. Welcome to the ghost club. There's coffee in the back..lol

Quote:I haven't claimed anything other than what the videos clearly show and describe as happening.

Now you're just lying... or delusional (but we already know that). You've repeatedly claimed these videos show ghosts. If it were clear, there would be zero dispute.
If you can't understand or acknowledge the simple distinction between belief and knowledge, it's useless to try educating you any further. You're just hopelessly ignorant.
No, a kid wondering off and getting involuntarily grabbed by someone in a van could still be a relative dealing with a rebellious child. Punches and crimes are often faked in TV and movies. Unless you have evidence it happened for real (victim and/or perpetrator ID'd), video demonstrates nothing.

Quote:Even if we had no idea the calf was killed yet, the trail cam would be adequate proof it was killed by a cougar.

You said "proof it was killed." Now you're backpedaling to "attacked." @_@ Again, nothing good CGI couldn't do. So without further evidence, you know nothing (not that you ever seem to know anything at all).
Again, you'd have to know what a plane was (previous knowledge), and unsupported claims of provenance are no better evidence than anecdote.
Moron, you're the one claiming ghosts, that you admit you don't know what they are. Clear argument from ignorance. I've never once claimed ghosts don't exist, nor even that there are no videos or pictures that could possibly show ghosts. I've said that your particular examples are not compelling nor convincing. That is a fact of my subjective opinion. Not an argument from a lack of evidence. I'm not saying it's not true because of a lack of evidence. I'm saying it's not convincing. Again, if you could only understand simple English, dipshit.
Again, you're using words you clearly don't understand, e.g. irrefutable. "because skeptics can't prove they are faked" is just another argument from ignorance.
I never said all videos/pictures are "always fake." That's your idiot straw man. Very often, they are just mistaken, like the first one in this thread.
Videos are scientifically useless unless we have another means to collect or verify evidence. That is the only way observation becomes knowledge. Very basic scientific method, dipshit. Again, like all your other examples, 9/11 videos are verified by the real-world destruction. If the Twin Towers still stood, the videos would obviously be fake, but it takes verification to establish that as a known fact. You really are just a ignorant child, aren't you?
I'm telling you what I think about how compelling or convincing your videos are of your claims and why I think so. Unlike you, I can admit that I don't know, for a fact, because neither of us has access to all the information (unedited and high-quality videos).

That you can't seem to fathom why someone wouldn't find these convincing just demonstrates your blind faith and vested interest in them.

Quote:Now you're just lying... or delusional (but we already know that). You've repeatedly claimed these videos show ghosts. If it were clear, there would be zero dispute.

The videos have no other explanation than ghosts. You certainly can't offer any. That's what the videos show. And no..the fact that people dispute something doesn't mean it's unclear. There are probably billions of creationists who dispute evolution, but that doesn't mean the evidence for it is shoddy or questionable. There are people who dispute that the Holocaust happened, claiming the photos are fake. There are people who similarly doubt the Moon landing. We could go on and on here..

Quote:If you can't understand or acknowledge the simple distinction between belief and knowledge, it's useless to try educating you any further. You're just hopelessly ignorant.

Tell me then oh wise one how we get our knowledge of reality if not from our senses. This should be hoot! lol

Quote:No, a kid wondering off and getting involuntarily grabbed by someone in a van could still be a relative dealing with a rebellious child. Punches and crimes are often faked in TV and movies. Unless you have evidence it happened for real (victim and/or perpetrator ID'd), video demonstrates nothing.

A relative abducting a child is still an abduction moron. We hear about them all the time from yellow alerts. And if you seriously think a video of a woman being assaulted by a man is a prank, you're an idiot.

Quote:You said "proof it was killed." Now you're backpedaling to "attacked." @_@ Again, nothing good CGI couldn't do. So without further evidence, you know nothing (not that you ever seem to know anything at all).

The point I'm making is the video proves beyond all doubt a cougar attacked the calf, even if the video wasn't obtained until a few days later and the calf corpse can't be found. It's the exact recording and proof of that event, and only a moron would think it was a hoax by somebody good at CGI.

Quote:Again, you'd have to know what a plane was (previous knowledge), and unsupported claims of provenance are no better evidence than anecdote.

No dumbass. The point being made is that even if we didn't know what lightning was, video of it hitting a plane would still be proof it exists. Not knowing what lightning is doesn't entail not knowing what a plane is. Ponder that for awhile.

Quote:Moron, you're the one claiming ghosts, that you admit you don't know what they are. Clear argument from ignorance.

With all the videos out there and eyewitness accounts we know what they look like, where they are usually located, and how they behave. That's not an argument based on ignorance of anything. It's an argument based totally on evidence, as indeed all claims need to be.

Quote:I've never once claimed ghosts don't exist, nor even that there are no videos or pictures that could possibly show ghosts. I've said that your particular examples are not compelling nor convincing.

Methinks thy ass doth protest too much. These videos have made the rounds on the internet, gone viral, and have been aired on national TV shows. If they weren't compelling they would've vanished into obscurity by now. And you certainly wouldn't be trying so hard to invalidate them. IOW, one doesn't persistently and emotionally fight things that one thinks are uncompelling or unconvincing.

Quote:Again, you're using words you clearly don't understand, e.g. irrefutable. "because skeptics can't prove they are faked" is just another argument from ignorance.

You don't even know what refute means do you? It means to show something to be false or unreal. And none of these videos, after years of being out there, have been shown to be such. If that's not irrefutable I don't know what is.

Quote:That is a fact of my subjective opinion. Not an argument from a lack of evidence. I'm not saying it's not true because of a lack of evidence. I'm saying it's not convincing. Again, if you could only understand simple English, dipshit.

We know. All skeptics have to claim the evidence isn't compelling, otherwise they would have to admit it might be true. And that goes against their sacred creed that such things don't exist. It's the typical lie to keep their worldview in tact. You're no different from all the others.

Quote:I never said all videos/pictures are "always fake." That's your idiot straw man. Very often, they are just mistaken, like the first one in this thread.

So tell me how these videos are mistakes then. Mistaken what's?

Quote:Videos are scientifically useless unless we have another means to collect or verify evidence. That is the only way observation becomes knowledge. Very basic scientific method, dipshit. Again, like all your other examples, 9/11 videos are verified by the real-world destruction. If the Twin Towers still stood, the videos would obviously be fake, but it takes verification to establish that as a known fact. You really are just a ignorant child, aren't you?

Liar..I just listed about 5 or 6 examples of videos used in science and investigations without having to be verified by anything. The videos in fact serve as direct observation. And before anyone in the world had received verification by present eyewitnesses that the towers had fallen, they all had the videos showing that is exactly what happened. We knew it the moment we saw the videos. And that's because videos are recordings of what really happened. Once again your claim that videos are unreliable is disproven.

Quote:Unlike you, I can admit that I don't know, for a fact, because neither of us has access to all the information (unedited and high-quality videos).

Few people have access to the original videos of events happening. Yet the videos are never deemed unreliable or questionable because of that. Now why is that? Because everybody accepts the videos as accurate portrayals of real events, given there's no reason or evidence to suspect otherwise. Once again, the videos stand on their own as solid evidence. And you know this. Which is why you are so angry and hostile over them. Why all the emotion and meticulous effort just to dismiss them? What's at stake for you here? What's under threat for you, and who or what are you heroically defending here?

(May 18, 2025 10:51 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]The videos have no other explanation than ghosts.

You're delusional.

Quote:Tell me then oh wise one how we get our knowledge of reality if not from our senses. This should be hoot! lol

I already gave you the definitions of belief and knowledge. If you can't comprehend those simple definitions, you're hopelessly and willfully ignorant.

Quote:A relative abducting a child is still an abduction moron. We hear about them all the time from yellow alerts. And if you seriously think a video of a woman being assaulted by a man is a prank, you're an idiot.

LEARN TO READ, MORON! I didn't say a relative abducting a child. I said a relative retrieving a wayward child. I didn't say an assault prank. I said a TV/movie punch.
You're so delusional you can't even manage to read the simple English in front of you. You must have those voices in your head telling you what it says.

Quote:The point I'm making is the video proves beyond all doubt a cougar attacked the calf, even if the video wasn't obtained until a few days later and the calf corpse can't be found. It's the exact recording and proof of that event, and only a moron would think it was a hoax by somebody good at CGI.

The fact is that, without further evidence, no one could know for sure. Again, I said CGI. I didn't say hoaxed. You're just chock-full of straw men. Must be your desperation.

Quote:No dumbass. The point being made is that even if we didn't know what lightning was, video of it hitting a plane would still be proof it exists. Not knowing what lightning is doesn't entail not knowing what a plane is. Ponder that for awhile.

For christ's sake, learn to read. No one said not knowing what lightning was entailed anything at all, moron. I said knowing what lighting is and knowing what a plane is are two separate bit of knowledge, and that you'd need both to know anything about such a video. Otherwise you just think magic sky light touched a weird giant bird (assuming those are within your knowledge base).

Quote:With all the videos out there and eyewitness accounts we know what they look like, where they are usually located, and how they behave. That's not an argument based on ignorance of anything. It's an argument based totally on evidence, as indeed all claims need to be.

You already admitted you don't know what ghosts are. Clear argument from ignorance. Too late to backpedal from that, intellectually dishonest dipshit.

Quote:Methinks thy ass doth protest too much. These videos have made the rounds on the internet, gone viral, and have been aired on national TV shows. If they weren't compelling they would've vanished into obscurity by now. And you certainly wouldn't be trying so hard to invalidate them. IOW, one doesn't persistently and emotionally fight things that one thinks are uncompelling or unconvincing.

Learn to read. No one said they were universally uncompelling to everyone. Even if just you, that would obviously be untrue. Try using your brain for once.
You also insist on conflating two different meanings of the word "compelling." I'd say you were being intentionally obtuse, but I don't believe you're smart enough for that.
Again, I'm having fun laughing at the dumb animal fooled my simple tricks.

Quote:You don't even know what refute means do you? It means to show something to be false or unreal. And none of these videos, after years of being out there, have been shown to be such. If that's not irrefutable I don't know what is.

Argument from ignorance.

Quote:We know. All skeptics have to claim the evidence isn't compelling, otherwise they would have to admit it might be true. And that goes against their sacred creed that such things don't exist. It's the typical lie to keep their worldview in tact. You're no different from all the others.

How many times do I have to remind you that I believe in souls/ghosts? You just can't seem to fathom that someone could believe they exist and also not find your so-called evidence convincing. Unlike you, I can actually be objective about my beliefs.

Quote:So tell me how these videos are mistakes then. Mistaken what's?

Already have, many times. Go read them again, dipshit.

Quote:Liar..I just listed about 5 or 6 examples of videos used in science and investigations without having to be verified by anything. The videos in fact serve as direct observation. And before anyone in the world had received verification by present eyewitnesses that the towers had fallen, they all had the videos showing that is exactly what happened. We knew it the moment we saw the videos. And that's because videos are recordings of what really happened. Once again your claim that videos are unreliable is disproven.

Again, you fail to understand the difference between knowing and believing.

Quote:Few people have access to the original videos of events happening. Yet the videos are never deemed unreliable or questionable because of that. Now why is that? Because everybody accepts the videos as accurate portrayals of real events, given there's no reason or evidence to suspect otherwise.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." 9_9

Litany of an evasive backpeddling hair-splitter:

"LEARN TO READ, MORON!"

"For christ's sake, learn to read."

"Learn to read."

"Already have, many times. Go read them again, dipshit."

"You also insist on conflating two different meanings of the word "compelling."

"Again, you fail to understand the difference between knowing and believing."