Video as an acceptable form of evidence

[Earl Grey]

How we end up in Mo Pai discussions again and again with almost the exact same talking points rehashed every time without boring anyone baffles me, especially as the more colorful comments are now unambiguously going to be moderated immediately.

 

I'll share one opinion an ex-gf made about the whole video as acceptable evidence argument when it came up:

 

Spoiler

"If you are dumb enough to believe everything on video, then you are dumb enough to believe women aren't faking it in porn."

 

[Michael Sternbach]

All of it is true. In some world!

[zerostao]

10 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

You still dont see the problem with this?

 

 

Please reread this...I did not write it without reason...it is a literal summary of what really happens

 

Can you not trust yourself to rule out fraud?

 

Perhaps that is easy for me to say as someone with training in experimental design...but given what I have seen in the field...One would be foolish to trust an academic to do that for them. The vast majority literally lie through their teeth to get the results they want, to get the promotions they want, to get the grants they want...and so forth...tweak here, P hack there..omission of data...fabrication of other data....it goes on and on

 

Do you have a way to screen for that?  If not, I think you are sorely mistaken trusting anyone to do that for you...Its actually gullible if im being honest to trust someone based on a title. I get the attraction towards it...but if you lived that reality for a while..you'd see exactly why Im saying it

 

 

Bingo !!

This is the type of post that pushes the envelope towards moderation. 
And I am only one mod, to be sure, yet one that tends to act a little quicker and perhaps “somewhat unpredictable”

 

It is fine to question everything. Being a skeptic for skeptic’s sake is fine.

State that you see no value in a particular system/style/school if you feel you need to comment along those lines.

However, with this post, and from what I’ve seen in limited readings of your posts from other threads; you have crossed a line or two or more and are in violation of the rules IMO

also IMO you are in violation of the spirit  of this forums rules. And that from my perspective is a more serious matter.

You will be sanctioned, handed restrictions, which I will post a bit later.  I need a little time to think it over, at least three minutes or so.

perhaps another mod will speak on this, perhaps not.

I will detail the issues that concern me on the subsequent post of mine.

 

I try and keep it friendly, so a bit of advice. And I will share that I myself have been sanctioned in the past due to a post that I made on. Mo pai thread a few years back. 
My free advice is try to avoid any knee jerk reaction. There is no need for you to try and defend your post. Stay relaxed and absorb the sanction. Learn from it. Adjust in a positive fashion after reading my next post on this. 

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, zerostao said:

Bingo !!

This is the type of post that pushes the envelope towards moderation. 
And I am only one mod, to be sure, yet one that tends to act a little quicker and perhaps “somewhat unpredictable”

 

It is fine to question everything. Being a skeptic for skeptic’s sake is fine.

State that you see no value in a particular system/style/school if you feel you need to comment along those lines.

However, with this post, and from what I’ve seen in limited readings of your posts from other threads; you have crossed a line or two or more and are in violation of the rules IMO

also IMO you are in violation of the spirit  of this forums rules. And that from my perspective is a more serious matter.

You will be sanctioned, handed restrictions, which I will post a bit later.  I need a little time to think it over, at least three minutes or so.

perhaps another mod will speak on this, perhaps not.

I will detail the issues that concern me on the subsequent post of mine.

 

I try and keep it friendly, so a bit of advice. And I will share that I myself have been sanctioned in the past due to a post that I made on. Mo pai thread a few years back. 
My free advice is try to avoid any knee jerk reaction. There is no need for you to try and defend your post. Stay relaxed and absorb the sanction. Learn from it. Adjust in a positive fashion after reading my next post on this. 

 

You're entitled to moderate as you please...but if you could point out to me where there is a violation in that post I'm more than happy to listen. The following is not a defense, it is a clarification...seems my intention and your interpretation are divergent..so I'll elaborate for those purposes only.

 

That's a criticism of academic practice, not a school or individual. There are three videos with scientists present...It is not specific, and not targeted. A layperson generally is not accustomed to academic practice and so has not been privy to a publish or perish culture, and the dishonesty and lies that comes with it. I'm very familiar with it...and know that a vast majority of scientists are liars. There's literally no need take my word for it...anyone can read around the replication crises and what has become standard academic practices

 

There is a certain degree of blind acceptance amongst academics, especially in terms of the general public...It is this that I reference as gullible, and meant in the manner of "overly trusting". You may be familiar with the term scientism?

 

The following is most worth anyone's time, if they wonder what I am talking about

 

 

If pointing these facts out ( and they are facts) is worthy of moderation, by all means, please moderate as you see fit. I have no objection

Edited April 15, 2022 by Shadow_self

[liminal_luke]

Is video good evidence of supernatural abilities and amazing chi-supported feats?  Probably not.  Then again, I'm not the looking-for-evidence type, at least not when it comes to choosing a spiritual practice.  I think if someone is looking for evidence, whether or not they find it, they've already taken a spiritual detour.  The whole skeptic/believer spectrum is a minefield, and arguing about it largely a waste of time.  An entertaining waste of time (I'm here, ain't I?) but a waste of time nevertheless.  

 

Examining evidence is useful for scientists evaluating research studies, for jurors weighing the merits of a criminal case, for consumers deciding whether or not to buy the latest wide screen TV.  It's not such a useful skill, in my view, for prospective cultivators of spiritual systems.  Rather than examining video, I think it makes more sense to simply try something you feel drawn to and then see what happens within your own body.  What happens in one's own body is evidence of a sort too I suppose, but we come to it with an attitude of openness and curiosity.  There's a looser feeling.  

Edited April 15, 2022 by liminal_luke

[Shadow_self]

15 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Is video good evidence of supernatural abilities and amazing chi-supported feats?  Probably not.  Then again, I'm not the looking-for-evidence type, at least not when it comes to choosing a spiritual practice.  I think if someone is looking for evidence, whether or not they find it, they've already taken a spiritual detour.

 

Is evidence of physical manifestation of abilities a necessity for a good spiritual system? Not necessarily

 

The tantric/alchemical approach is just one means. There are others

 

Imo the things that arise that aren't as easily quantified are far more beneficial than those which are...but that revelation only came after the confirmation such things are  "real" to begin with...It takes a bit of time for the mind to adjust when new paradigms are formed, and old ones are...well in my case destroyed

 

Edited April 15, 2022 by Shadow_self

[liminal_luke]

1 minute ago, Shadow_self said:

 

 

Imo the things that arise that aren't as easily quantified are far more beneficial than those which are.

 

 

Beautiful.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to critical thinking and believe human being possess the ability to think statistically for a reason.  It's just that when it comes to spiritual practice "the things that arise that aren't as easily quantified" are my focus.

[Shadow_self]

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Beautiful.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not opposed to critical thinking and believe human being possess the ability to think statistically for a reason.  It's just that when it comes to spiritual practice "the things that arise that aren't as easily quantified" are my focus.

 

Generally speaking, from any system that I have encountered...It is these qualitative shifts where the real potential for spiritual growth is buried. I don't think one can even do alchemy without a radical overhaul of personality and so forth.

 

In reality the energetic work...it is a double edged sword. If you are an angry person for example, and you do a strong energetic practice...chances are it will just amplify these traits and make you worse...unless you are doing all the other practices alongside it. Conversely if you are making those changes and overcoming the traits, mind-states and habitual programming, the energetic work will fuel that process...and support it

 

This is one reason why you see multiple layers of practice in a lot of traditional systems...they cover every angle so that progression is much more likely..and the bases are covered

[doc benway]

12 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

How we end up in Mo Pai discussions again and again with almost the exact same talking points rehashed every time without boring anyone baffles me, especially as the more colorful comments are now unambiguously going to be moderated immediately.

 

I feel like it would be nice to have a thread where all the MoPai derailings can go to die, or live forever as the case may be.

[Shadow_self]

Quote

There seems to be some confusion here.

 

Filming random youtube videos doesn't constitute good evidence not by a long shot.

 

Bringing in professionals who give it their very best effort to rule out fraud occurring and recording that demonstration and observational study that does.

 

Also the end goal is not to recruit "suggestible" individuals.

 

Also with that thread you'll get nothing but confirmation bias because of your wording.

 

@Iliketurtles your post will be answered here...there's no point in having this all over the forum. One thread is fine

 

Video is video. All video is open to the same manipulation, irrelevant of who was there or what happened. There is no confusion there.

 

What I stated earlier was that anyone who believes solely because a few scientists or doctors are present, that this automatically validates a video...is either overly trusting or perhaps easily swayed/suggestible (I originally used the term gullible, but see how that could be misinterpreted, so retract it in favour of the these terms). I used the example of "scientism" to illustrate this point, as this is usually the best example of this.

 

Anyway, in all of those videos, there is no evidence those individuals did their best to rule out fraud. There is evidence they did something...but that something is a country mile from "best practice"...in terms of that standard...they barely got off the mark...

 

This is where the matter of competency comes into play.

 

[Sidenote: There was another part of the forum where I was asked to outline my credentials...I made it very clear it was not required...and to judge me not based on the amount of letters after my name (though I have a few), but my ability to critique what I seen in the science presented]

 

A title does not equate to competency, because as we have already established...titles are so often gained through dishonest means...therefore it stands to reason logically, that a lot (not all, certainly) of the people with such titles actually gained them through a lack of competence.  (If someone wanted to create a thread on that, I could dive pretty deep on that topic if they wish)

 

Moral of the story...competence is key and title ≠ competence

 

This might be a difficult truth to swallow for some, but make no mistake...it absolutely is the truth

 

I say this based on 2 facts

 

#1 The state of science as a whole, as outlined by myself in terms of the exponential level of dishonesty and deceit that permeates almost every aspect of it

#2 The very true statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

#1 Is an indisputable fact...the evidence is absolutely overwhelming

#2 You already admitted, video evidence is not extraordinary evidence...therefore it stands to reason it cannot be used to verify extraordinary claims

 

@Pak_Satrio made the very good point, that it may provoke one to go in search of evidence for themselves...but that it would not be convincing. I think that's a fair point, and I see the merit in his words

 

With that out of the way...I need to address your very false claim that the question is loaded...it is not

 

The question is very clear, we  are trying to ascertain whether or not video is acceptable form of evidence in terms of supernatural/paranormal events. As we are amongst a forum of cultivators and those in pursuit of spiritual truth, I had to use the word routinely, as for some of us, what is considered paranormal has become normal. 

 

The vast majority of people seem to think no it isn't. There is only one person who believes that it does. 

 

Therefore, while you might think a video is a convincing piece of evidence in this case ( and that's fine, you're free to hold your own beliefs, whatever they might be) …most people don't seem to share that sentiment.

 

This small piece of empirical data, should however, give you a reason to pause, and consider why you are making the argument for people to place faith in a video in this instance, when they clearly don't see it as sufficient?

[Shadow_self]

I just wanted to add, for anyone that isnt aware...this strawman argument of "personal testimony" seems to keep coming up. I dont think anyone made the case for "testimony" but this is a classical logical fallacy. Below is a graphic that explains it

 

[Nungali]

7 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

You're entitled to moderate as you please...but if you could point out to me where there is a violation in that post I'm more than happy to listen. The following is not a defense, it is a clarification...seems my intention and your interpretation are divergent..so I'll elaborate for those purposes only.

 

That's a criticism of academic practice, not a school or individual. There are three videos with scientists present...It is not specific, and not targeted. A layperson generally is not accustomed to academic practice and so has not been privy to a publish or perish culture, and the dishonesty and lies that comes with it. I'm very familiar with it...and know that a vast majority of scientists are liars. There's literally no need take my word for it...anyone can read around the replication crises and what has become standard academic practices

 

There is a certain degree of blind acceptance amongst academics, especially in terms of the general public...It is this that I reference as gullible, and meant in the manner of "overly trusting". You may be familiar with the term scientism?

 

The following is most worth anyone's time, if they wonder what I am talking about

 

 

If pointing these facts out ( and they are facts) is worthy of moderation, by all means, please moderate as you see fit. I have no objection

 

Cant for the life of me see how why or when you need   moderation for anything you wrote   ???    Especially in a response to someone who continually  brings up a contentious  issue -  under a smoke screen - in all sorts of ways.

 

   

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

One person voted yes, I wonder who that could be 👀👀👀

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

17 hours ago, Earl Grey said:

How we end up in Mo Pai discussions again and again with almost the exact same talking points rehashed every time without boring anyone baffles me, especially as the more colorful comments are now unambiguously going to be moderated immediately.

 

I'll share one opinion an ex-gf made about the whole video as acceptable evidence argument when it came up:

 

  Hide contents

"If you are dumb enough to believe everything on video, then you are dumb enough to believe women aren't faking it in porn."

 

Wait, so the couples in porn don’t actually love each other???

[Earl Grey]

6 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Wait, so the couples in porn don’t actually love each other???

No, it means that the cable guy/pizza guy/pool boy all don’t actually get tipped well…😜

[zerostao]

20 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Doctors  ?  What ? Someone with a doctorate in video editing  ?

Seems to be a skill in high demand.

Bet it pays well.

[Zorro Dantes]

If you were required to do so under law, and were not given a choice.

 

How would you provide better evidence?

 Ahh sweet pea even Steven Segal just recently said on video when it really matters…the law doesn’t… bringing us back to the whole bias thing structuring understanding to fit one’s narrative  on an agenda leaving a scorched earth in the event one’s truth can’t be! A lovely female Sasquatch encounter just nothing I suppose🧐👄🦧but isn’t nothingness something to be striven for in this whole dao thing turtle’s? I find recalibration back to zero is  might be what sages might have been getting at when comes to the dao being nothin🫥its also great way to divert negative energy it’s not just mathematically savy buddy. - x - = +  don’t try to think of it terms of selfish x selfish equals my way. I’ve seen a few dum dums try to be arbitrarily slick with this concept given the English terms but if  you don’t fall under that category one should be able grasp the concept clearly. Negative x Negative =Positive … apologies as I digress but how can you even make this argument as a  Mo pai cat? Least the argument of spotting ghosts and dieities on camera is more so about how real life visions is more muppet like fleshy vs the watery fuildity of digital manipulation 🫠 narrows down the ultra fake videos I believe. But then you gotta go through old special affects 🤔 still doesn’t change the fact that the famous Paterson footage of Bigfoot is that of female Sasquatch have you seen her breasts😳… check’em out 🤫😉

[Shadow_self]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Cant for the life of me see how why or when you need   moderation for anything you wrote   ???    Especially in a response to someone who continually  brings up a contentious  issue -  under a smoke screen - in all sorts of ways.

 

   

 

I have no idea...if the mods feel that way so be it, I'm not going to argue the point, I can only clarify what I meant.

[Iliketurtles]

 

9 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

@Iliketurtles your post will be answered here...there's no point in having this all over the forum. One thread is fine

 

Video is video. All video is open to the same manipulation, irrelevant of who was there or what happened. There is no confusion there.

 

What I stated earlier was that anyone who believes solely because a few scientists or doctors are present, that this automatically validates a video...is either overly trusting or perhaps easily swayed/suggestible (I originally used the term gullible, but see how that could be misinterpreted, so retract it in favour of the these terms). I used the example of "scientism" to illustrate this point, as this is usually the best example of this.

 

Anyway, in all of those videos, there is no evidence those individuals did their best to rule out fraud. There is evidence they did something...but that something is a country mile from "best practice"...in terms of that standard...they barely got off the mark...

 

This is where the matter of competency comes into play.

 

[Sidenote: There was another part of the forum where I was asked to outline my credentials...I made it very clear it was not required...and to judge me not based on the amount of letters after my name (though I have a few), but my ability to critique what I seen in the science presented]

 

A title does not equate to competency, because as we have already established...titles are so often gained through dishonest means...therefore it stands to reason logically, that a lot (not all, certainly) of the people with such titles actually gained them through a lack of competence.  (If someone wanted to create a thread on that, I could dive pretty deep on that topic if they wish)

 

Moral of the story...competence is key and title ≠ competence

 

This might be a difficult truth to swallow for some, but make no mistake...it absolutely is the truth

 

I say this based on 2 facts

 

#1 The state of science as a whole, as outlined by myself in terms of the exponential level of dishonesty and deceit that permeates almost every aspect of it

#2 The very true statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

#1 Is an indisputable fact...the evidence is absolutely overwhelming

#2 You already admitted, video evidence is not extraordinary evidence...therefore it stands to reason it cannot be used to verify extraordinary claims

 

@Pak_Satrio made the very good point, that it may provoke one to go in search of evidence for themselves...but that it would not be convincing. I think that's a fair point, and I see the merit in his words

 

With that out of the way...I need to address your very false claim that the question is loaded...it is not

 

The question is very clear, we  are trying to ascertain whether or not video is acceptable form of evidence in terms of supernatural/paranormal events. As we are amongst a forum of cultivators and those in pursuit of spiritual truth, I had to use the word routinely, as for some of us, what is considered paranormal has become normal. 

 

The vast majority of people seem to think no it isn't. There is only one person who believes that it does. 

 

Therefore, while you might think a video is a convincing piece of evidence in this case ( and that's fine, you're free to hold your own beliefs, whatever they might be) …most people don't seem to share that sentiment.

 

This small piece of empirical data, should however, give you a reason to pause, and consider why you are making the argument for people to place faith in a video in this instance, when they clearly don't see it as sufficient?

 

I asked a question earlier, if you saw UFOs/UAPs on a regular basis, how would you document it?   

 

How could you produce the highest quality evidence to substantiate your personal testimony?

 

I would assume you'd bring in a team of professionals, and record it all on video. 

 

I asked if not that then what would be a better solution?

 

And we agreed that there wasn't a better solution. 

 

The fact that video can be edited, and faked is a criticism of all forms of evidence it isn't specific to video. 

 

Video is superior to personal testimony because people lie, the human mind filters and is biased, and human memory is fallible. 

 

Video is definitely an upgrade to testimony. 

 

It seems like we agree on this based on your comments. 

 

This is the best we can do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

6 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

I just wanted to add, for anyone that isnt aware...this strawman argument of "personal testimony" seems to keep coming up. I dont think anyone made the case for "testimony" but this is a classical logical fallacy. Below is a graphic that explains it

 

 

It isn't a straw-man. 

 

Saying video is a poor form of evidence,  in comparison to what exactly?

 

Personal testimony is the other option here, and it's a far worse alternative. 

 

 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Wait, so the couples in porn don’t actually love each other???

 

Well, they do have a mutual love

 

Spoiler

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Shadow_self]

5 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

 

I asked a question earlier, if you saw UFOs/UAPs on a regular basis, how would you document it?   

 

How could you produce the highest quality evidence to substantiate your personal testimony?

 

I would assume you'd bring in a team of professionals, and record it all on video. 

 

I asked if not that then what would be a better solution?

 

And we agreed that there wasn't a better solution. 

 

The fact that video can be edited, and faked is a criticism of all forms of evidence it isn't specific to video. 

 

Video is superior to personal testimony because people lie, the human mind filters and is biased, and human memory is fallible. 

 

Video is definitely an upgrade to testimony. 

 

It seems like we agree on this based on your comments. 

 

This is the best we can do.

 

No, you misrepresent the situation as a false polarity...as if an individual has no option to see/experience such things themselves..

 

You are doing so to exclude this option, and it is creating a strawman as it attempts to place my position as testimony is acceptable (you even created a thread. You are presenting the only alternative as testimony, which is also a false dichotomy...when that is not the case....it never was...You are the one who mentioned giving demonstrations to convince skeptics need I remind you?

 

Personal direct experience is the ONLY medium that will suffice...no other option is acceptable in the face of extraordinary claims

 

But you have given two redundant options in place of it. Here is why they are redundant

 

A person can lie about their experience....they could also be telling the truth...the only way to know is to go and experience oneself

A person can manipulate a video...it may also be accurate....the only way to know is to go and seek out the experience yourself

 

Both are easily misrepresented...and there is an endless amount of limitations...there is none better than the other in the case of extraordinary claims.

 

So there are people who see "UFOs" all the time

 

There are people who regularly interact with teachers who can light them up with Qi

 

There is no need for video or testimony because there is a very real option to seek these things out and inspect for oneself...anything else is faith...nothing more

 

The only thing we agree on is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...and as such neither video or testimony will suffice.

 

Examples of court cases and such dont hold up...because they are not extraordinary...those things are routine happenings

[Iliketurtles]

Just now, Shadow_self said:

 

No, you misrepresent the situation as a false polarity...as if an individual has no option to see/experience such things themselves..

 

You are doing so to exclude this option, and it is creating a strawman as it attempts to place my position as testimony is acceptable (you even created a thread. You are presenting the only alternative as testimony, which is also a false dichotomy...when that is not the case....it never was...You are the one who mentioned giving demonstrations to convince skeptics need I remind you?

 

Personal direct experience is the ONLY medium that will suffice...no other option is acceptable in the face of extraordinary claims

 

But you have given two redundant options in place of it. Here is why they are redundant

 

A person can lie about their experience....they could also be telling the truth...the only way to know is to go and experience oneself

A person can manipulate a video...it may also be accurate....the only way to know is to go and seek out the experience yourself

 

Both are easily misrepresented...and there is an endless amount of limitations...there is none better than the other in the case of extraordinary claims.

 

So there are people who see "UFOs" all the time

 

There are people who regularly interact with teachers who can light them up with Qi

 

There is no need for video or testimony because there is a very real option to seek these things out and inspect for oneself...anything else is faith...nothing more

 

The only thing we agree on is extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...and as such neither video or testimony will suffice.

 

Examples of court cases and such dont hold up...because they are not extraordinary...those things are routine happenings

 

 

Going and seeing for yourself isn't always an option. 

 

John is dead, Jiang is dead,  Jiang's students refuse controlled private demonstrations,  so...

 

Sometimes you have to rely on the best evidence available to you.

 

The people I know only give demonstrations to skeptics if they think doing so might result in a serious seeker pursuing the practice, otherwise it is a waste of time, money and energy.

 

 

[Shadow_self]

20 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

It isn't a straw-man. 

 

Saying video is a poor form of evidence,  in comparison to what exactly?

 

Personal testimony is the other option here, and it's a far worse alternative. 

 

No it isnt the other option...and you yourself are the one who brought up demonstrations need I remind you (Again)

 

In respect to extraordinary claims

 

A person can lie...it is useless

 

A video can be manipulated...it is equally useless

 

Unless you can find something to overcome the weaknesses of these things...they are of no use in the case of extraordinary claims...because neither can produce extraordinary evidence

 

 

[Iliketurtles]

Just now, Shadow_self said:

 

No it isnt the other option...and you yourself are the one who brought up demonstrations need I remind you (Again)

 

In respect to extraordinary claims

 

A person can lie...it is useless

 

A video can be manipulated...it is equally useless

 

Unless you can find something to overcome the weaknesses of these things...they are of no use in the case of extraordinary claims...because neither can produce extraordinary evidence

 

 

 

 

I think what you are driving at is ultimately there is no way to prove anything, because all evidence can be fabricated. 

 

In such an imperfect situation it makes sense to me to do the best you can, with the best evidence you have.