Have you ever had a real experience you consider to be supernatural?

[Mad_Jack]

I'm somewhat convinced that there are wormholes in my house, lol...

My house has a tendency to eat things.

Sometimes items that have been sitting in the same place for years suddenly aren't there anymore, and a couple of times they've turned up years or even decades later in other places there's no real reason for them to be in.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I have had one experience that makes me wonder. I was a teenager and saw something at night, when I was lying down to go to sleep. Dark shape, red eyes, large pale hands. I would put it down to a hypnagogic experience, save for the fact that my brother, when I told him about it, described having seen the same exact thing on a separate earlier occasion. I've not ruled out the possibility that he was pulling my leg, but I've asked him that numerous times since and he's always sworn that he wasn't.

 

[Janx]

I'd like to add an observation, based on experience from both sides of this sort of conversation. I'm not even really comfortable reducing it to two "sides", but it'll do for now, I hope.

I'm not attacking or accusing anyone of anything, and I haven't read the whole thread, but because of my experiences I just want to add a word of caution.

Offers to dissuade others of their spiritual beliefs are fraught with pitfalls, for both parties. The would-be dissuader might just be (consciously or unconsciously) better at making arguments that seem rational, or they might just be more forceful, or less inclined to yield ground, than the "believer". Such attempts can even become gaslighting and abusive. So, even with the best intentions (and it's hard to know if one's intentions are actually best, or instead self-serving) these attempts can be harmful to the target of the dissuasion.

As noted, attempts to dissaude others of their beliefs can also be very self-serving, a way for the dissuader to stroke their ego and feel smarter-than or better-than the target.

I am in no way arguing that "believers" are less forceful, more gullible, more easily intimidated, etc. than non-believers. Nor am I arguing that they are less rational. If that sounds nonsensical, well, that's part of what I'm cautioning against.

Myself, I was raised in a tradition that embraced religious faith and reason, and I would feel just as silly saying I hadn't experienced anything "supernatural" as I would saying I haven't experienced anything rational.

These are good points. And they align with my general policy to avoid trying to convert someone to/from a religion.

But there's a big but than you even alluded to.

If somebody believes in something that truly isn't real (and there's a worrying lot of that going on these days), they don't have a solid position to defend. Whereas the person arguing against, does. Because that's how facts work.

Now in the case of something like Flat Earth, the truly wrong folks are entrenched, and have their own dizzying array of baloney to barf out as their argument. Only the most steadfast can wade through to debunking it all to get to their own proof. And even then, the denier will deny. It's crazy.

In a smaller case of, "I think I saw a ghost" maybe not so much. But then, if I can offer a simpler explanation (and demonstrate it) on how a water faucet got turned on by itself, well, why shouldn't I do that?

Because at the heart of it, we are humans looking to understand how the universe works. Every unexplained occurrence is a stimulus to somebody to figure it out. And settling for made up non-sense is the antithesis of that spirit. It is what holds us back from seeing the shadows on the wall in the back of the cave for what they truly are.

And so, I respect being kind about it, but I'm not gonna hold somebody back from figuring out the truth with actual facts. Which I shouldn't even have to put those 2 words together.

 

[Dioltach]

I think there's a difference between facts and meaning. If someone says they saw a ghost, they're attributing a particular meaning to the experience. You can try to convince them otherwise with facts, and they might appreciate the science, but they won't like being told that the experience, and the meaning that they find in it, has no value.

 

[Ryujin]

I think that it all comes down to "do no harm" for me. If someone's belief makes them search for meaning, then that's a good thing. If it makes them shut down their mind to anything that falls outside their world view, then that's bad. I have friends who are "Wiccans" and "Pagans." They believe in stuff like Reiki, Tarot readings, and the like, however, they use them as guiding principles instead of a straight jacket. They wouldn't, for example, use "essential oils" exclusively to treat illness, when there is a perfectly good General Practitioner just up the road. They are vaccinated. It's additive, not exclusionary. If all that it really does is provide a placebo effect, while causing no harm to themselves or others, where's the problem?

 

[Umbran]

It's additive, not exclusionary. If all that it really does is provide a placebo effect, while causing no harm to themselves or others, where's the problem?

Because, often it isn't "just a placebo effect". Sometimes belief systems say something different than scientific systems, and they come into conflict. Let me give you an example from my wife's work...

My wife is a veterinarian who does geriatric, palliative, hospice, and end of life care.

Some of my wife's clients have used "animal communicators" - people who are hired because the client believes they can communicate with their pet in great detail. Fluffy may be senile, blind, and half-deaf, but the communicator knows that Fluffy wants a hamburger for dinner, and the blanket on her bed swapped out for the blue one.

When the communicator tells the client that Fluffy wants a lavender-scented candle burned at their passing, this is not a big deal. When the communicator tells the client to change doses on Fluffy's medications, it can be a very big deal. When the communicator tells the client that Fluffy "isn't ready to go yet" while the veterinarian says the animal is suffering, that's a problem.

 

[Ryujin]

Because, often it isn't "just a placebo effect". Sometimes belief systems say something different than scientific systems, and they come into conflict. Let me give you an example from my wife's work...

My wife is a veterinarian who does geriatric, palliative, hospice, and end of life care.

Some of my wife's clients have used "animal communicators" people who are hired because the client believes they can communicate with their pet in great detail. Fluffy may be senile, blind, and half-deaf, but the communicator knows that Fluffy wants a hamburger for dinner, and the blanket on her bed swapped out for the blue one.

When the communicator tells the client that Fluffy wants a lavender-scented candle burned at their passing, this is not a big deal. When the communicator tells the client to change doses on Fluffy's medications, it can be a very big deal. When the communicator tells the client that Fluffy "isn't ready to go yet" while the veterinarian says the animal is suffering, that's a problem.

I believe that my previous statement explicitly excluded that sort of person

 

[Umbran]

I believe that my previous statement explicitly excluded that sort of person

That's like saying, "What harm is there in the cases that I cherrypick to not be harmful?"

 

[Hex08]

I think that it all comes down to "do no harm" for me. If someone's belief makes them search for meaning, then that's a good thing. If it makes them shut down their mind to anything that falls outside their world view, then that's bad. I have friends who are "Wiccans" and "Pagans." They believe in stuff like Reiki, Tarot readings, and the like, however, they use them as guiding principles instead of a straight jacket. They wouldn't, for example, use "essential oils" exclusively to treat illness, when there is a perfectly good General Practitioner just up the road. They are vaccinated. It's additive, not exclusionary. If all that it really does is provide a placebo effect, while causing no harm to themselves or others, where's the problem?

The problem is kind of subtle. Take homeopathy or the supplement industry as an example. These industries are generally not regulated and there have been reports of ingredients in these products that are not disclosed on the label so people may not know what it is they are actually taking and that can be dangerous. Also, ingredients may be labeled but since there is no regulation or scientific standard the amounts can wildly vary. As an example, belladonna has been found baby teething gels and since there is no medical or scientific standard for the products and no regulation the dosage can vary and harm children.

Many supplements do have ingredients that have a medical effect but since people consider them "natural" they sometimes don't disclose to their doctor what they are taking and if being issued a prescription the doctor could, unknowingly, prescribe something that interacts negatively with the over-the-counter supplement.

Sometimes real treatments take time to be effective and someone can become impatient while on a legitimate treatment and try something that has no real efficacy (Reiki, homeopathy, acupuncture or whatever) while still continuing the medically approved treatment. Since the pseudoscientific method ends up being used closer to the time the person recovers, they may falsely attribute the actual cause of their cure to pseudoscience which can cloud their judgement for the rest of their treatment or future treatments.

Finally, the placebo effect is real and can cause a person to feel better without having actually improved their condition and cause them to delay seeking proper medical help.

 

[Morrus]

I think that it all comes down to "do no harm" for me. If someone's belief makes them search for meaning, then that's a good thing. If it makes them shut down their mind to anything that falls outside their world view, then that's bad. I have friends who are "Wiccans" and "Pagans." They believe in stuff like Reiki, Tarot readings, and the like, however, they use them as guiding principles instead of a straight jacket. They wouldn't, for example, use "essential oils" exclusively to treat illness, when there is a perfectly good General Practitioner just up the road. They are vaccinated. It's additive, not exclusionary. If all that it really does is provide a placebo effect, while causing no harm to themselves or others, where's the problem?

Given that particular example — pseudoscientific medical practices do cause harm, your anecdotal friends notwithstanding. People do seek out ‘alternative’ cures and neglect scientific medical treatment. It’s a thing. It happens. People die. And sometimes they even neglect their children in this way. Harm is caused.

That’s why science- based outreach is important. We can’t make people believe things, but we can make sure the correct information is available to them. What they do with it? That’s down to them. But pseudoscience needs to be challenged when it appears, because it does do harm.

It’s not just your friends, who sound great. It’s a much wider phenomenon than your social circle. It’s a global problem.

Now this has nothing to do with ghosts and UFOs, which was the topic of this thread. But since you brought up pseudoscience in medicine, I felt I should explain where the opposition to it comes from. It ain’t harmless.

Here’s one high profile example, but you can find this all over the place:

The Gerson protocol, cancer, and the death of Jess Ainscough, a.k.a. “The Wellness Warrior”

Less than four days ago, a young Australian woman died of a very rare type of cancer. Most of my American and probably many of my European readers have never heard of her, but in Australia she had

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Even worse, of course, are the pseudoscientific practicioners who prey on sick people. I’ve known people with cancer who are inundated by these vultures. When it goes that far, as far as I’m concerned it should be criminal.