|
MARK L. BAKKE'S
 Return to "Pseudoscience" essay Back to Philosophy page Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!
Please report any problems with this page to the
Webmaster!
|
|
REPLY #6 TO
"PSEUDOSCIENCE AND THE PARANORMAL"
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
 Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited. My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB). (R) This is the final time i will try to explain this, so i will do so as if talking to an inferior rather than an aqual, no offense intended. (MB) None taken. I'm just trying to ensure that the details of your story don't present any problems. If they do, the entire story loses credibility. I'm sure you can see that. (R) Day one i am in the seminary, day sixty there is a vacation.Day sixty one i hear the footsteps(same day the priest dies), day sixty two i hear of his death. (MB) Your original story (as posted in Reply #4) made no mention of having been in the seminary for sixty days (or anything about a vacation). Beginning with the second phrase of the first sentence, it says: "...i of course had no place to go for the holidays. On my second night, a saturday, around 9 pm I heard the familiar sound of feet walking..." In Reply #5, you mention "the second night of the vacation", which seems odd
if you had "no place to go for the holidays". Also, in Reply #5, you said "...I
had already been in Ireland three months", which would suggest ninety days
rather than sixty days.(R) Stay with me, he didnt die in my room, he had once lived there, untill i came to the seminary.I thought i mentioned that. (MB) The only thing mentioned in the original story (Reply #4) is: "It was later that night when i found out that a priest who had lived in my room for ten years before i got there, had died at nine oclock the previous evening." No mention is made of when the priest left the room or why he moved out. (R) The suicide story i talked of is if you recheck my story a completely different topic, there were two suicides over sixty years ago, also before i went there. (MB) I found a couple of web sites dealing with the seminary at Maynooth, but saw no mention of the suicide story. I haven't examined all the sites yet and certainly may have missed something. Do you know of any sites where one might read about this story? (R) Forgive me if i am sounding slightly bold, its good to have your website where you analyze things but you dont seem to take the time to get the bigger picture before making up your mind. (MB) I haven't made up my mind yet. It shouldn't come as any surprise that I begin from a position of skepticism, but I can only move towards acceptance if my questions are successfully answered. I hope you understand why I am asking those questions. (R) Im sure with this additional info you can reread my original tale and see what i tried to explain. (MB) I greatly appreciate your efforts to clarify the issues here. (R) Final peice of advice, being a sceptic is ok, but if your most common response will be "can you prove it?" we will never get anywhere. (MB) Is it better to blindly accept whatever one is told? In any case, I haven't asked for definitive proof of anything (although I have asked if there is any corroboration of your story). I have been more concerned with what has seemed to be a couple of inconsistencies in the original story and its subsequent clarifications. At this point, that is really all I can do. (R) We cannot prove anything, read up on our great philosophers, nothing can be proven,... (MB) You might read some of my replies in the "Religion" area to see where I have quoted many of the great philosophers of past and present about that very idea. "Proof" depends a lot upon what it is that you are attempting to prove. If it is something in physical reality, one can prove it merely be showing incontrovertible evidence for it. Ideas or proposals for things that exist outside of the physical realm are a different matter. (R) ...in fact we might be brains hooked up to supercomputers and every feeling we have is a programed input of some alien race. (MB) If so, there would still be something physical that could be shown or demonstrated in order to prove such a thing. (R) If we cant prove we are here, how can some guy typing to you on the internet prove the existance of ghosts in ireland. (MB) Those are two entirely different and unrelated matters. In the case of your story, all that I (or anybody else reading this) has to go on is the evidence presented through the details of your story and any supporting references that you might offer. If all of this can be scrutinized and can be shown to be solid, your story gains credibility even if it can't be proven through this media alone. (R) Last thing before i retire, reading this you may get assumptions, some are true. For instance my typing sucks, i never learned. My grammar may need work, i didnt have money for a full education. But my IQ is still 162, but whats the point telling you, your just going to respond "prove it" (MB) Not at all. I'll take your word for those things. My IQ has routinely been measured to be in the mid-170's (with a high of 187), but that has no bearing on the facts or details of what we are discussing. All I have done is to attempt to coordinate the details of your story and to propose a natural explanation for what happened. Yes, I am skeptical, but that is a position of reason and not one of
contempt. After all, tales of the supernatural certainly qualify as
"extraordinary claims" which will require "extraordinary proofs" (to paraphrase
Carl Sagan). Any bone of contention within the details of such stories can only
damage their chances for acceptance.
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 22 Nov 98
E-mail: mlbakke1@bakkster.com Earthlink Network Home Page |