-3

The argument goes:

  1. Over 50% of all statements made by all people in general are true or at least sincere.
  2. Over 50% of observation reports are factually accurate (not reports of hallucinations).
  3. A nonnegligible percent of observation reports involving unusual lifeforms are made sincerely and are not reports of hallucinations.
  4. Therefore, there is a nonnegligible reason to believe in the existence of unusual lifeforms.

How strong are these kinds of reasons? If a lifeform is unusual, and this somehow undercuts naturalism, but we have independent reason to prefer naturalism, does that undermine the testimonial value of the cited reports?

Kristian berry, here is my actual argument, in the most understandable way : My argument is being misunderstood so lets try again: Most people aren't crazy, or liars, any explanation brought forth for as to why non crazy non liars claimed to see a creature that they gave an actual description of in a way that implies that they saw it in that form, these explanations are not the best way to know what happened for these reasons : Number one , these sightings have existed for a large portion of human history, meaning sightings of unusual creatures are a part of our world , categorically things reported to have bThese creatures are obviously beings, in a category, categorically unusual creatures, the fact that they are different looking doesn’t matter, as the category is unusual creatures. These creatures aren’t really extraordinary,In a way that requires doubt due to the fact that the presumption about them is that they cn’t exist, simply because I saw them in a movie or a story, but you don’t have enough knowledge to make the claim that they CAN’T possibly exist, when they are categorically consistent with BEINGS.een seen are usually real, for example, chairs, trees, walls, and, lastly, BEINGS. Which we sight everyday, most of the time, beings that are sighted are real, rejecting this and bringing up explanations is irrational since they either aren’t sufficient enough as an explanation due to the way they were derived and also don’t apply in most scenarios. Now mind you, what the person describes it as, a god, or a evil spirit, it doesn’t have to be that, however it stands to reason that something was at least seen.

"The question might be better off deleted altogether, as the original poster seems to be mentally unbalanced, but maybe the revision will calm them down... " no it didn't that's not the entire I argument

loopit
  • 121
  • 4
  • so if these creatures exist then science cabe called into question as it depends on naturalism – loopit Aug 07 '23 at 17:24
  • 4
    Humans often *are* liars, but they can also be mistaken, or hallucinate, and they may also see whatever they are *expecting* to see. *"Most things people see are real."* Visual perception *isn't* reality – it is one of our senses that combine to create our *concept* of reality – as thousands of stage magicians exploit in their shows. If you are *convinced* that you saw something, then you are not lying when you declare its truth. Expectations arise from our subconscious, and emotions. IIR there was a rise in sightings of ET-like creatures after the movie "Close Encounters Of The Third Kind". – Weather Vane Aug 07 '23 at 17:44
  • I have edited this question to render it in coherent, readable sentences. If you think I have edited incorrectly, feel free to revert. – g s Aug 07 '23 at 17:48
  • It's still unclear, since there is a distinction between the reports being real, and the "non human beings" being real. In the latter case it isn't a philosphy question. – Weather Vane Aug 07 '23 at 18:36
  • Most people hallucinate for a while within every 24-hour period, i.e. by dreaming. I don't see how any of this tells against science or naturalism, either (no one is seeing atemporal objects, since all seeing is in time, for example). Moreover, society often does come to accept the appearance and existence of unusual phenomena, within scientific bounds (e.g. black holes, wave-particle duality). The reasons against promoting specific cryptid/related narratives (e.g. the Mothman) are well-enough established. – Kristian Berry Aug 07 '23 at 18:40
  • "Humans often are liars, but they can also be mistaken, or hallucinate, and they may also see whatever they are expecting to see. "Most things people see are real." Visual perception isn't reality – it is one of our senses that combine to create our concept of reality " YOu didnt get what i mena by real, i mena physical things with color, – loopit Aug 07 '23 at 18:58
  • @loopit if you intend to reply to a comment please use the @ as here. – Weather Vane Aug 07 '23 at 19:27
  • 1
    @loopit I agree that "Most things people see are real" but you should understand that sight is not the same as perception. Sight is a very raw sense, but perception has been processed by the brain from that, along with other factors, such as preconceptions, expectations and other senses. That's perhaps why the word 'see' isn't just about sight. – Weather Vane Aug 07 '23 at 19:36
  • to clarify, unfortantely I actually NEEDED to do that, but to clarify , This isn't to say that, all of those cases are correct,because obviously some of them are hallucinated, but rather with the vast amount of them many of them are likely to be correct with this in mind, even though not all of them are, i quite literally already talked about hallucinations so for someone with an iq of at least 22, they should be able to know im saying many cases are likely to be correct jsut because of the fact most people don't hallucinate and aren't crazy – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 11:21
  • @WeatherVane to clarify, unfortantely I actually NEEDED to do that, but to clarify , This isn't to say that, all of those cases are correct,because obviously some of them are hallucinated, but rather with the vast amount of them many of them are likely to be correct with this in mind, even though not all of them are, i quite literally already talked about hallucinations so for someone with an iq of at least 22, they should be able to know im saying many cases are likely to be correct jsut because of the fact most people don't hallucinate and aren't crazy – – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 11:33
  • @loopit is has nothing to do IQ or with being crazy. Almost everybody "sees things" especially when they are tired, and in poor light. – Weather Vane Aug 08 '23 at 11:37
  • "Almost everybody "sees things" especially when they are tired, and in poor ligh" @WeatherVane this is just stupid, people act like its impossible for shapes to exist in the physical reality, this is dumb because its already the case that most people aren't hallucinating when they claim to see something, and, the cases of people seeing things are the ones im talking about that people actually, and obviously believe, which are obviosuly to rational people many, why do I need to actually clarify this? – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 11:45
  • As stated, because they are convinced they saw what they reported. How is that hard to understand? That does not mean they are crazy, stupid, liars or any other pejorative description you care to throw around. Your agenda is plainly to somehow prove that apparations are real. – Weather Vane Aug 08 '23 at 11:47
  • @WeatherVane it doesn't matter, of course SOME people are gonna hallucinate due to the trick of an eye, but most people when seeing things arent actually hallucinating, mos tpeople arent liars, most people rent being tricked by their vision while seeing things, and its even less likely when they give detailed descriptions that it was a trick of the mind, therefore, using this rule , on the vast amount of cases throughout all of earths history, we come to the conclusion that, while there are people who really were insane, others really did at least see something. – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 13:37
  • - 'your agenda is to prove apparitions are real" yes thats correct and I usually succeed in my agendas of proving something is real, if it comes from a certain framework, please explain how this agenda means anything, at least try to bring some type of valid argument – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 13:37
  • "Your agenda is plainly to somehow" you said somehow, but youll have to explain how people even came to the conclusion that there was an explanation that exists as the correct one to most cases of these, one of them is an assumption, that the story just spread throughout cultures, its an like assumption since its based off of an assumption – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 13:39
  • Will you please stop ranting? – Weather Vane Aug 08 '23 at 13:40
  • @WeatherVane go on – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 13:40
  • @WeatherVane i stopped ranting now go on – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 13:44
  • @loopit getting past your level of name-calling, they are apparitions (or numerous synonyms). These words exist because they are a common occurrence. With me, they will be seen out of the corner of my eye, especially when tired and in poor light, and when I look properly they resolve to something else: a shadow, a leaf in the wind, etc. IMO they are a product of the lower brain, at the level of 'flight or fight' etc, an instantaneous reaction which attributes meaning to what we see at a basic survival level, before the higher levels of consciousness and rationality get to process it... – Weather Vane Aug 08 '23 at 17:56
  • I can imagine that in some cases the illusion doesn't get resolved quickly, and persists with nothing to contradict it, and people believe the creation of the instinctive brain was real. Why wouldn't they? – Weather Vane Aug 08 '23 at 17:56
  • " IMO they are a product of the lower brain, at the level of 'flight or fight' etc, an instantaneous reaction which attributes meaning to what we see at a basic survival level, before the higher levels of consciousness and rationality get to process it" and they are obviously not real looking enough and detailed enough for people to believe in, mind you, the confusion here might be caused by you thinking that i say al claims of these things are rwal, my arumgnet is that pribalistically there are many real ones due to the reaosnung i used and the vast amount of cases out there – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 19:40
  • Please stop typing utter garbage. Please look at argument fallacies too. You simply cannot prove anything the way you are trying. – Weather Vane Aug 09 '23 at 00:08
  • @WeatherVane here is the actual argument : Kristian berry, here is my actual argument, in the most understandable way : My argument is being misunderstood so lets try again: Most people aren't crazy, or liars, any explanation brought forth for as to why non crazy non liars claimed to see a creature that they gave an actual description of in a way that implies that they saw it in that form, these explanations are not the best way to know what happened for these reasons : Number one , these sightings have existed for a large portion of human history, – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 15:18
  • -meaning sightings of unusual creatures are a part of our world , categorically things reported to have These creatures are obviously beings, in a category, categorically unusual creatures, the fact that they are different looking doesn’t matter, as the category is unusual creatures. These creatures aren’t really extraordinary,In a way that requires doubt due to the fact that the presumption about them is that they cn’t exist, simply because I saw them in a movie or a story, but you don’t have enough knowledge to make the claim that they CAN’T possibly exist – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 15:18
  • when they are categorically consistent with BEINGS. seen seen are usually real, for example, chairs, trees, walls, and, lastly, BEINGS. Which we sight everyday, most of the time, beings that are sighted are real, rejecting this and bringing up explanations is irrational since they either aren’t sufficient enough as an explanation due to the way they were derived and also don’t apply in most scenarios. Now mind you, what the person describes it as, a god, or a evil spirit, it doesn’t have to be that, however it stands to reason that something was at least seen. – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 15:18
  • a liar, means, a consistent liar, and someone with the pscyhological profile of a liar, doing lies for personal gain, meaning, big lies, not saying yeah i did my homework but rather larger lies, like, im a prophet, claiming to be god, or divinely inspired, rich, etc, you know, and claiming to see creatures that are unusual aren't really all lies, they cant ALL be lies, and creatures, are categorically consistent with observations, thus its less likely to be a lie – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 15:21
  • One flaw in your thinking is the assumption that if somebody sees something that doesn't exist then they must stupid, lying or crazy. And even if they *are*, you'll need to come up with some hard statistics about those people and the number of reports etc. to support "must be". or "can't be". I think you should recognise when you are on a sticky wicket and retire gracefully. Nobody here has accepted your point that the creatures *must* exist, from a point of reason alone. – Weather Vane Aug 11 '23 at 19:11
  • "One flaw in your thinking is the assumption that if somebody sees something that doesn't exist then they must stupid, lying or crazy." no, thats not true, its not that they MUST BE, rather, its that, if its not there then they are either being tricke by their mind into seeing it, or lying, they dont have to be crazy, you cant deny that theres been at least some cases when the explanations brought up by skeptics are present , you piss me off with your lack of proper thinking, and your misrepresenting my argument, – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 19:16
  • Please don't be rude. I understand what you are trying to say, but it's going nowhere. I'm not goign to agree with your theory, no matter how many times you repeat it. And by the look of it, nobody else is either. – Weather Vane Aug 11 '23 at 19:26
  • Finally a true story. When at school I went into one section of the library to look for a book. There, right in front of me was standing a giant bat. It was about 1m tall, and swaying slightly from side to side. I blinked. It couldn't be, but it was. Its wings were folded in pleats with a black leathery look. I was transfixed. What on earth... after half an eternity the chaplain in his black gown straightened up from where he was bending away from me to examine the books on a low shelf. I wasn't stupid, lying, or crazy, but if I had left before then, the bat would have existed forever. Byeee! – Weather Vane Aug 11 '23 at 19:28
  • @WeatherVane yes thats also nonsensical, shapes still exist, aren;t extraoirdinary, don't agree with it, thats fien. but youd still be aware that all the nonsenical theories you come up with aren't actually rational ways of knowing what happened, in most cases if they mostly never apply, "Byeeeee!" – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 19:49

4 Answers4

2

One reason to doubt such reports is because of the way that they change with time and culture. In ancient cultures steeped in polytheistic religion, people saw gods and demons. In the more agnostic Roman culture, people saw ghosts. In Christian Mediaeval culture, they saw devils. In later Western-European culture when witch-burning became a thing, they saw witches. In Ireland they saw fairies. In Eastern Europe they saw vampires. In Russia, they saw hairy monsters. People of African descent in the Western Hemisphere saw zombies. With the rise of science fiction, people started to see flying saucers, aliens, and Bigfoot as well as other cryptozoological creatures.

So there are two possible responses to this plethora of paranormal activity: either there are hundreds of different varieties of paranormal creatures whose existence is unprovable and who mysteriously follow the extant stories of a culture, or there is some common sort of event going on here where people falsely claim paranormal experiences of a sort that is influenced by their culture and the stories of their culture.

Frankly, the second is more plausible, but whether they are lying or whether there is some psychological event going on is open to debate. I suspect it's a combination of both. There clearly are frauds, but it is also possible that people respond to certain events by subconsciously warping their experience. Many of these stories involve sexual abuse by the paranormal creatures or sexual interaction with them, so it's possible that the stories are subconscious revisions of sexual abuse that people suffered as children and forgot, brought forward in time to when a person gets drunk and falls down and hits his head or something.

On the other hand, there is evidence of the paranormal/supernatural which is not so easily dismissed, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility entirely. It's probably best to be skeptical but not to the point of being completely close-minded.

David Gudeman
  • 6,647
  • 1
  • 10
  • 38
  • as for the second paragraph, know that thats not true, after proof has been established which is what I did, then look for rational explanations because mind you, these creatures are not human nor are they physical, which is more than what you can see and hear, it refers to the natural universal things we can use science to observe, we look for rational explanations like, they are a single race of creatures who can shapeshift, and this is actually rational to put forward because of the fact that – loopit Aug 07 '23 at 23:26
  • - there are many different stories of supernatural creatures with the same core narrative, like, a guy acts normal and friendly, then acts weirdly, then disappears in the blink of an eye, so this is simply evidence of the commonalities in these peoplees stories – loopit Aug 07 '23 at 23:27
  • @loopit if the supposed creatures disappear in the blink of an eye, then they were never actually there in the first place. The reason for the same core narratative comes from expectations, as mentioned in David's para 1. – Weather Vane Aug 08 '23 at 08:01
  • There is no evidence of the supernatural that can’t easily be dismissed. Please cite examples – thinkingman Aug 08 '23 at 20:40
  • @thinkingman prophet muhammad is literally the example, he predicted the uncertain prts of the future that he likely couldn't have based on pattern recognition – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 22:03
  • Give me one example that couldn’t have been predicted by chance or not been made up after the fact – thinkingman Aug 08 '23 at 23:52
  • @thinkingman, what would you accept as evidence of the supernatural? – David Gudeman Aug 09 '23 at 00:50
  • Something occurring that is impossible under our current understanding of natural law, such as the sea splitting into two – thinkingman Aug 09 '23 at 01:37
  • @thinkingman, you would have to see it yourself? There have been many miracles reported witnessed by multiple people. What sort of evidence would it take for you to consider seriously the possibility it was a real miracle and not just a fraud or error or some previously unknown phenomenon? – David Gudeman Aug 09 '23 at 05:31
  • Have me see it yes or with enough people at once reporting it. Ideally though, myself – thinkingman Aug 09 '23 at 06:55
  • "Something occurring that is impossible under our current understanding of natural law, such as the sea splitting into two – " i would accept that as evidence of the supernatural but logically it makes no sense because natural laws aren't laws in the way we understand them, they have to do with consistent observations of behavior , there's no saying the behavior stays the same, so it would likely depend on the context, like for example if i say "allah split the moon or sea" and it happens soon after then thats evidence – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 15:36
1

First, our brain is a pretty amazing thing. It's like the control center for our whole body, and it helps us understand and interact with the world around us. But sometimes, it can get things a little mixed up.

For example, have you ever heard of something called "pareidolia"? It's a fancy word that means our brain is really good at finding patterns, like seeing shapes in clouds or a face on the moon. Our brain does this to help make sense of the world. Sometimes, this can lead us to see things that aren't really there.

Also, our brain uses our memories to help us understand new things. So, if someone sees something they can't explain, their brain might use memories of stories, movies, or pictures to fill in the blanks. This could explain why some people report seeing non-human beings that look like creatures from a story or movie.

As for hallucinations, they aren't just caused by drugs or wild imagination. They can also happen when someone is really tired, stressed, or sick. And while it's true that most people don't hallucinate, it's not as rare as you might think.

  • " They can also happen when someone is really tired, stressed, or sick" out of alll the reports that exist throughout history are you saying all of them were either one of these things, or crazy, as well as the reports today, and the fact you used pareidolia as, pareidolia deals with, faces you see on physical objects, we would have to explain how those objects have hands and legs and other things – loopit Aug 07 '23 at 23:57
  • You don't need propensity to hallucinate. That's the point. So your premise is wrong. Pareidolia is indeed a broader phenomenon than just facial recognition. It's a psychological occurrence that involves recognizing patterns, shapes, and familiar objects in a vague or random stimulus. While the most commonly recognized form of pareidolia involves seeing faces in inanimate objects (like a face on the moon or in a cloud), it extends much further. You are wrong again. –  Aug 08 '23 at 00:06
  • this is ridiculous, all the cases throughout history, all of the had pareidolia, all the cases throughout world history had pareidolia? Even though what they saw are literally just shapes? – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 15:53
  • on top of that, theres no need to tell the experience to people in the modern age where soemthing like this, paredolia is obviously a hallucination. I had pareidolia yesterday and other days and i saw images of it that matched with my experience, its something that doesn't look real enough and doesn't last long enough, for even people in the past to consider real, you can literally just call it an image, or some type of drawings, if i was a cave man and saw a drawing on a tree, even if i never saw one before I wouldn'[t consider it to be real @Gabriel – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 15:58
  • pareidolia, is, literally, an image basically, not a real existing thing that people beelive to actually be real – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 16:04
  • Reread our dialogue again. You said that paredolia just deals with faces, I corrected you on that. Instead of saying you were wrong you started to claim I said "all had pareidolia". Though I didn't say it. I corrected your wrong statement about "only faces, but not legs or hands". If you are wrong, deal with it. Logic is logic, it's a bit harder than believing in imaginary Allah or imaginary creatures. Develop logic, my friend. :) –  Aug 08 '23 at 17:33
  • @Gabreil the logic you should develop, before being confident enough to smile is that I never said that YOU said that your argument defeats mine, lmao, kafir, what I said is that wether its pareidolia or not it doesn't matter because at the end of the day even if it has legs and arms its not real enough looking for people to believe, it looks odd, and it looks off, it doenst look like your typical real thing, I have pareidolia, not that it is exactly the same as everyones experience, but its the same as most pareidolic experiences that other people have, they ususally dont involve the – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 19:10
  • -creatures in reports, pareidolia covers more things, but when it covers human like things , meanign things with legs and arms and hands and a head, it becomes less likely to be pareidolia since pareidolia is obviously a hallucination to people in todays time, second of all I don't believe those creatures existt only as what they appear as, they are likely to be jinn and many are likely to be shaitan, howver im not arguing for shaitans existence RIGHT NOW, what i'm arguing for is just the fact that people have seen this things, and this can then lead to jinn and shaitan – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 19:11
  • Oh, shaitans. We finally discovered what it is all about. If you often see shaitans I seriously advise you to consult a psychiatrist and take medicines. You need neither this forum nor arguments, you need help of a professional. Hope Allah will lead you to a good clinic, my friend. :) –  Aug 09 '23 at 11:51
0

Let’s say ten percent of people at liars. 1 percent of people say they saw aliens. Do you think 90% of them are saying the truth?

There’s a correlation between being a liar and claiming to have seen an alien.

gnasher729
  • 5,048
  • 11
  • 15
  • most people still arent liars – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 13:53
  • Amongst people claiming to have seen aliens most people are liars. The rest is mistaken, paranoid, on drugs etc. – gnasher729 Aug 09 '23 at 17:27
  • There's a good point here about how to interpret statistics. As an analogy to demonstrate the problem: "Most people are moral, therefore many/most murderers are moral". Although I wouldn't say most people who make claims of supernatural or mythical beings are lying. Accusations of lies are unfalsifiable and attack people's character, and therefore should come with a rather high burden of proof. Most just have normal human experiences, and attribute extraordinary explanations to that. Some may have hallucinations and such caused by mental illness or drugs. Some are probably lying, sure. – NotThatGuy Aug 11 '23 at 14:20
0

As skeptics commonly say:

"We accept that you had an experience, we just don't accept the explanation you give for the experience."

We wouldn't say people are lying about their experiences, for the most part.

And I wouldn't call people "crazy" or "dumb" for having such experiences, or interpreting them in an unjustified way, because those are insults, and intelligence and mental health has many dimensions. Some people do experience hallucinations (whether non-existent figures clearly standing in front of them in broad daylight, or just a moving shadow in the dead of a sleep-deprived fever-induced night). Some people aren't all that skeptical (even many skeptics used to believe supernatural claims: that's part of what led to our skepticism, and how we developed or discovered a method to evaluate these claims).

I've thought I've seen things in the corner of my eye, or in the dark, and I felt unusual things, and I've had dreams that seemed real, and so on. And many or most people seem to have experienced similar things, but they don't conclude that this was due to supernatural beings. So why should we believe people who share similar experiences and say it was supernatural beings? Answer: we shouldn't, at least not based on them just saying it was a supernatural being.

We've evaluated their recounting of their experiences, and we've found those to be insufficient to justify belief in what they're claiming. In many cases, their recounting indicates that they didn't really see all that much, it happened while they were in bed, so there's a significant chance that it was a dream, there's no corroborating evidence, etc.

Other people believing things is not a good reason for you to believe it. They may have bad reasons for believing what they do. We know people believe things for bad reasons. If applied consistently, this would also lead to contradictory beliefs, because people believe things that contradict what others believe. Religion is a good example, where different religions have claims that contradict other religions. And even in one religion, people make incompatible claims (about what their deity is like, about what happens after death, about how their deity interacts with the world, about what their deity even is, etc.).

Also, many supernatural claims would be very far outside how we consider reality to work, and would have far-reaching consequences, which implies that we'd likely have had far better evidence if that were true. For example, if ghosts exist, that would imply that every person who's ever died could potentially have their soul floating around. If even just a tiny fraction of those become ghosts, and if ghosts can interact with material reality, we should still have constant and clear evidence of that all the time. This comes with a far higher burden of proof than just "yeah, some people believe it, so it must be true".

they give descriptions of beings that aren't from their religious tradition

Many, many people claim to have experiences of being that are from their religious tradition.

Also, people tend to make claims of things they're already familiar with based on popular culture or myths or whatever. One could say that people making similar claims is evidence that it's true, but it could just as easily be evidence that people have a tendency to try to explain what they experience with things they already know about.

Many claims of e.g. alien abduction tend to involve similar-looking aliens, which just so happens to match aliens according to media, and how they look has also changed across time in media as well as in the claims people are making.

people are so educated today

Most people have some basic education, and I do mean basic. You may be surprised how little education some adults have received. 8% (~27 million people) of US adults are illiterate and 54% have a literacy below 6th-grade level (as per Wikipedia). But even higher education rarely teaches psychology or principles of skepticism. And I'm not convinced about the degree to which you can even teach skepticism. Beyond that, many people are indoctrinated into cults and false beliefs. When you have things repeated to you over and over again across your entire childhood, everyone around you believes it, you're not going to be too inclined to seriously question that.

people are skeptical of supernatural claims

Where's your evidence for this? I'd say that people believing supernatural claims (with poor justification) is evidence that they aren't skeptical.

Many people who believe in the supernatural are skeptical of other supernatural claims, sure, but a significant criticism skeptics raise against believers in the supernatural (theists in particular) is that they don't apply their skepticism consistently, and they make exceptions for their own beliefs. Or they just don't have personal experiences related to those other supernatural claims, and would also believe them if they did have such experiences, using their flawed epistemology.

And this part of your argument seems circular: People's claims of the supernatural are true (or justified), because they're skeptical and wouldn't believe things if they weren't true.

If you want to determine whether someone is skeptical, you should evaluate the evidence or justification for what they believe, but you seem to want to skip this step.

All the other factors like wild imagination as well as drugs can't be surmised because of the fact that most things people see are real. Therefore it's an assumption to presume that they had some type of hallucination. You also have to acknowledge that most people don't have propensity to hallucinate.

The key word there is "most". Most things we see is real, and most people don't hallucinate (for the most part). But we also know for certain that some things we see aren't real, and we know for certain that some people hallucinate. Given the lack of corroborating evidence, hallucinations are far more plausible than the existence of the extraordinary things people are claiming they've seen.

NotThatGuy
  • 4,003
  • 13
  • 18
  • "Where's your evidence for this? I'd say that people believing supernatural claims (with poor justification) is evidence that they aren't skeptical. " a chrsitna, muslim, or buddhist, would still be skeptical of a guy who said the saw a fairy, do you understand what I meant by that? If I claim to see a demon, a muslim, christian, or catholic would be skeptical. Therefore, the things that do make you hallucinate are not existing in most people, Meaning mental illness, They won't be skeptical of all things outside their religious beliefs though but aliens in your backyard? No they won't – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 16:15
  • "People's claims of the supernatural are true (or justified), because they're skeptical and wouldn't believe things if they weren't true. this seems circular" what I mean by this is that, its more likely to be something that looks as real as your hand, look at your hand, it is more likely to look as real as it. Since its easy to tell the difference between real and fake things, in this day. A faint looking ghost or dark figure to them is a hallucination, its faint and goes away quickly, intuitively thats fake. – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 16:23
  • "The key word there is "most". Most things we see is real, and most people don't hallucinate (for the most part). But we also know for certain that some things we see aren't real, and we know for certain that some people hallucinate. "yes but you see, these cases are throughout history , the very fact that people tell it to people shows its supposed to be something significant to them, if I saw a squirell I wouldn't tell my parents, or anyone, same for a ant or a rabbit or a bunny or a cow, however its very difficulty to use a unreal looking image to trick myself – loopit Aug 08 '23 at 16:34
  • @loopit People are skeptical of *some* supernatural claims, but a significant criticism skeptics raise against believers in the supernatural (theists in particular) is that they don't apply their skepticism consistently, and they make exceptions for their own beliefs. And most people who believe in the supernatural didn't hallucinate: they had a dream, saw something out of the corner of their eye, had some feelings, were raised into those beliefs, were told it's true, read a book, etc. None of those things would warrant belief, I would argue. – NotThatGuy Aug 09 '23 at 11:43
  • @loopit "A faint looking ghost or dark figure to them is a hallucination, it's faint and goes away quickly, intuitively that's fake" - intuitively to you and me, sure. But if you listen to people trying to justify their supernatural beliefs, that (and even worse justifications) is most of what you hear. – NotThatGuy Aug 09 '23 at 11:44
  • @loopit I'm not sure what you mean. If you see a person-shaped figure in the dark in your house, that would certainly be very significant to you. The important question is not whether it was significant to you, but whether you took the time to consider the possibilities, and how you eliminated natural explanations (a coat rack, a trick of the light, a dream, and so forth), before concluding that it was a ghost. – NotThatGuy Aug 09 '23 at 11:45
  • My argument is being misunderstood so lets try again: Most people aren't crazy, or liars, any explanation brought forth for as to why non crazy non liars claimed to see a creature that they gave an actual description of in a way that implies that they saw it in that form, these explanations are not the best way to know what happened for these reasons : Number one , these sightings have existed for a large portion of human history, meaning sightings of unusual creatures are a part of our world , categorically things reported to to have been seen are usually real, trees, BEINGS, etc – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 11:24
  • These creatures are obviously beings, in a category, categorically unusual creatures, the fact that they are different looking doesn’t matter, as the category is unusual creatures. These creatures aren’t really extraordinary,In a way that requires doubt due to the fact that the presumption about them is that they cn’t exist, simply because I saw them in a movie or a story, but you don’t have enough knowledge to make the claim that they CAN’T possibly exist, when they are categorically consistent with BEINGS. Which we sight everyday, most of the time, beings that are sighted are real – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 11:26
  • - rejecting this and bringing up explanations is irrational since they either aren’t sufficient enough as an explanation due to the way they were derived and also don’t apply in most scenarios. Now mind you, what the person describes it as, a god, or a evil spirit, it doesn’t have to be that, however it stands to reason that something was at least seen. – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 11:26
  • @loopit You've just again said basically "most people don't hallucinate, therefore most people don't hallucinate". You aren't really saying anything that hasn't already been addressed by myself or others. "they can’t exist, simply because I saw them in a movie" - that's not even close to what I said, and I never said they "CAN’T possibly exist". But their existence being possible doesn't mean it's plausible, nor does it mean we're justified in believing that they exist. – NotThatGuy Aug 11 '23 at 11:57
  • have you really adressed it? Do you even know what I' talking about? I'm not talking about religious beliefs I mean unusual creatures people claimed to see who they gave descriptions of in a way that implies THEY SAW THE BEING IN THAT FORM. You still haven't proved that all unusual creatures are extraordinary, unusual creatures means any unusual being, wether its mothman or a monster. – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 13:32
  • "But we also know for certain that some things we see aren't real, and we know for certain that some people hallucinate. Given the lack of corroborating evidence, hallucinations are far more plausible than the existence of the extraordinary things people are claiming they've seen." evidence is the fact multiple people have claimed to see it in some cases, they likely aren't crazy, or liars – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 13:34
  • "cor·rob·o·rate verb gerund or present participle: corroborating confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding). "the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack" that's literally an exmaple of corroboration, sight, multiple people seeing it – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 13:36
  • "Many, many people claim to have experiences of being that are from their religious tradition. " i was talking about the people who don't – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 13:38
  • "people are skeptical of supernatural claims " i mena if someone rhears about a creatur who is "extraordinary" and its not from their religious tradition they wont beelvie you, you cant deny this, if someone told them aliens invaded earth and bea tup a bunch of people while they were sleepingt hey would outrght reject that – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 13:40
  • "Many claims of e.g. alien abduction tend to involve similar-looking aliens, which just so happens to match aliens according to media, and how they look has also changed across time in media as well as in the claims people are making." the idea of grey aliens came from an account of gray looking aliens, in fact if grey aliens are consitently seen, and most aren't liars or crazy, and , beings who are consistently seen by non crazy non liars that have a certain physical appearance, that's actually evidence, because of the fact that species often look similair, species of the same names – loopit Aug 11 '23 at 13:44