Comments on: What’s Your Definition of an Expert?

By: JackP

JackP — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:50:39 +0000

Steve, for me the situation was best summed up by the evoloutionary biologist and author Stephen Jay Gould, who said something along the lines of “of my friends who are biologists, approximately 50% are religious and 50% are not. Therefore I have to believe either that science is not incompatible with religion or that half of my friends or irredeemably stupid”.

Which pretty sums up me. I’m skeptic, but not a non-believer, if you see the difference: I’m aware I’d like to believe in an afterlife, so because of that I want some evidence before I believe.

I would go as far as to say that I believe “there’s stranger stuff out there than people think” but exactly what form that is, I remain to be convinced about. I am interested in forteana though, so if you come across anything you think I might be interested in, please feel free to drop me a line via the contact form.

By: Steve Zepoloid

Steve Zepoloid — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:18:52 +0000

Hi Jack, try these societies for info on the paranormal. Most of these folk are scientists, psychologists, doctors of philospohy or professors.
the (american) (british) (scottish) society for psuchical research. substitute the proper term for each search. They all produce academic abstracts and journals on their investigations which are normally very rigourous. Hope this helps. Steve Z.

By: Steve Zepoloid

Steve Zepoloid — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:02:32 +0000

Hi Jack, good commments, however, I have to say that I have no bias on whether someone believes in ghosts, spooks, the afterlife or whatever. It is entirely up to them. Although I am a self employed professional, I don’t insist everyone believes the same as me, that would be arrogant in the extreme. However, I have had some really mind blowing experiences and been given totally specific information about things only I knew and that is what convinced me of existence beyond the grave. I’m happy to live and let live, if your a believer in something fine… if not, fine, but as you say, Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Derren Brown et al all have a vested interest in promoting their own views. The trouble with Randi and Dawkins is that they talk as if their opinion is the only one that holds water, as a matter of fact, for every atheiistic scientist, there are other scientists who are just as erudite as Dawkins, who hold belif in an afterlife. As for Randi….well least said soonest mended…one day he’ll be found out to be the fraud that he is! If the man would be honest about his disingenousness that would be a step in the right direction. As for shows you say we should always have skeptics to balance the input…actually in the uk we always have skeptics trying to disprove or rationalise everything. One thing i do believe…labels like ghosts, spirits, supernatural etc aren’t really helpful, because when we find out how these things work they will become commonplace in our society…you see I think agnostics have got it right…they’re not quite sure, the jury is still out, whereas, skeptics and atheists are of the NO…it can’t be true variety! they are the one’s who have closed their minds…they are like the people who thought man would never fly in the air like a bird….now look at us….look at the amazing technological advances we have made in the last century alone! One last thing i wish to say for the record, unfortunately there are paranormal conmen and women out there, cheats and swindlers, fakes and frauds who ARE conning people….they SHOULD be brought to book, however, there are also good honest, ethical practitioners like myself who have codes of conduct and act with integrity…and its’ when the likes of Randi and dawkins label us all as frauds that I take umbrage!

By: JackP

JackP — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:11:32 +0000

Steve, that’s very true. That’s why I object to the likes of Richard Dawkins with his somewhat hectoring approach towards religion.

However, anyone wishing to take a reasonable, objective approach would look to include different points of view – from those who believe in ghosts and those who don’t.

Which is why I objected to the fact that the only ‘experts’ consulted were those with a vested interest in suggesting they exist.

Given that you describe yourself as a psychic and clairvoyant medium, then, (if you charge for these services), you would also have a vested interest in people believing in it.

That isn’t to say it’s automatically nonsense, merely that you will come with an inbuilt bias (just as the likes of Dawkins would come with a bias from the other side).

I’m interested in this society for paranormal research thing though: can you give me any information on what research is going on and/or any published results?

By: Steve Zepoloid

Steve Zepoloid — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:29:03 +0000

Re: alleged ‘ghost’ photo criticism. Today it’s fashionable, hip and cool to be a skeptic and psychic basher. It appears that extreme skepticism is automatically assumed to confer scientific objectivity, honesty and integrity over and above other peoples’ opinions, specially believers in the paranormal who are considered idiots, gullible and totally incapable of any sound judgement. As for my own credentials, I am a theology graduate, minster of religion, teacher of religious education, member of the scottish society for paranormal research AND a genuine, bona fide paranormal expert as well as being a psychic, clairvoyant medium.
I have no objection to nayone having an opinion, but it seems to me that today, skeptics are determined to turn psychis and their followers into society’s whipping boy!

By: Gill

Gill — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:53:49 +0000

I think a large part of the problem is that the media don’t do any research on their so called ‘expert’ before taking their standing as gospel.

I had occasion not that long ago to gather together a group of ‘experienced users’, who would never have the cheek to class themselves as experts, to point out to the BBC that the ‘expert’ they had broadcast for one of their news snippets was talking out of her behind. Indeed the information she gave was actually dangerous.

To their credit, the producers backed down, broadcast a retraction and stated that in future they would consult a number of people before assuming one person actually had a clue.

Just assuming people are experts based on the fact they have an advert in the local paper or local directory is misguided. I have a list of plumbers and builders in this area who prove the fallacy perfectly.

By: chris foreman

chris foreman — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:50:34 +0000

An expert is someone who knows one thing more than you on any given subject. But it doesn’t mean that one thing is right or even real.