I don't know if this is the right sub to ask this in.

I have been a skeptic of chiropractic for most of my life. I live not far from a major chiropractic college and they are everywhere, where I live. And I just don't trust them or think they really understand science. They seem to be focused on keeping you returning to their offices, or selling you stuff.

But I was just diagnosed with osteoporosis. In trying to determine which direction to turn for treatment and (hopefully) some reversal, I have been recommended a book multiple times, now, called "great bones." The author is Keith McCormick, a chiropractor.

Does anyone here know anything about the book or this chiropractor?

He claims you have a future self that moves in the speed of light, controls your life and your future and he knows all of the endless possibilities in the universe and knows the best one for you
He says you can ask the future self anything you want as you fall asleep
He claims he is backed up by physics, but that sounds like pure nonsense

TL;DR - So skeptics, what is something you might believe that could be considered conspiracy but that actually could be found out to be true?

With people calling society and the marriage of technology and disinformation "post truth", Even with my degree that focused on critical thought and skepticism, we're just in a new world. In the mid-90s when I studied it we used Holocaust denial and fake moon landing is joke theories that were absurd but great to study to understand belief. Now it's like really out there like one day you wake up and you don't think there's a possibility of zombies and there are zombies.

I understand what it would take for a real conspiracy to be pulled off, meaning thousands of people that don't want to take a payday of writing a book, or making money off it.

But just like today and the DOJ proving Russian disinformation, and it's just the beginning of the investigation regardless of these indictments... There are things some people yell are conspiracies that actually might be true.

So if I need to offer one, it's probably pretty controversial, but it's about the lack of information, the lack of details, the lack of evidence, The way that the secret service gave him time for a photo op.... and the damned ear... I have a very difficult time believing that that assassination attempt wasn't staged. I say that with great humility and self-awareness, not trying to start a fight or be controversial. Just that nagging feeling I can't move on from.

But I don't go crazy, details will emerge over time and there will always be a conspiracy about it whatever the reality is. But that one is just the most bizarre event of the last decade. People immediately stop talking about it. Everything about it was weird, and the press has zero idea how to handle their job, seeking actual information to clarify the events of that day and make them transparent. Everything is so murky.

So skeptics, what is something you might believe that could be considered conspiracy but that actually could be found out to be true?

To what extent do you agree with the following statement:

"In politics, people are more concerned with whether you hold the 'correct' opinions rather than understanding the reasons behind differing opinions."

Whenever possible, please also provide a meaningful explanation as to why you made the choice.

View Poll

I would like to initiate a discussion on a topic that I believe is crucial for our community and the broader gaming industry: the balance between effective moderation and the risk of collective punishment.

Context:

Recently, I came across an instance where an online game banned all usernames containing the word "white" to prevent offensive usernames such as "white power." While the intention behind this policy is understandable, it has resulted in a significant number of users being unfairly restricted, simply because their usernames contained an innocuous term. This situation raises important questions about our current approaches to moderation.

Discussion Points:

1. Overzealous Filtering: Is the broad banning of certain words a reasonable approach to preventing misuse? How can we balance the need for moderation without unduly restricting the majority of users?
2. Collective Punishment: Should the majority of users be penalized for the actions of a few bad actors? What are the ethical and practical implications of this approach?
3. Context and Nuance: How important is it for moderation systems to understand the context in which words are used? Are there more sophisticated, context-aware solutions that can be implemented?
4. Legal and Regulatory Pressures: How do legal requirements impact the moderation policies of gaming companies? Are there ways to comply with these laws without resorting to overly broad restrictions?
5. Unintended Consequences: Have you encountered other examples where well-intentioned moderation led to unfair or absurd outcomes? How can we learn from these instances to improve our systems?

Case Example:

In one notable example, Japanese Apex players were banned for using the word "run" in their own language, written as ニゲル, because it phonetically resembled an offensive term in English. This underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to moderation.

Dunno if any of you have heard of the Riverside, California Monster, which supposedly had a "protuberant mouth", long, sideways legs, and skin that looked like "leaves". Could it have possibly been an escaped ostrich or emu?

https://obscurban-legend.fandom.com/wiki/Riverside_Monster (This site also postulates a vulture as the creature's identity.)

So I have a question. Personally I'm interested in what is often termed religious naturalism. It is a metaphysically naturalistic way of viewing the world and afaik often focuses on direct democracy. However, a lot of fellow redditors don't see that as really possible. One possible reason I've thought of for why that idea gets so much pushback is that religions and ideologies could be seen as doinf a lot of the thinking for you, tather than letting you use your own reasoning ability and weighing the evidence yourself. Am I right about that? And is that a good argument for trying to create a religion or spirituality w/o woo/god/the supernatural is a dumb idea?

There is a celebrity with Aquagenic Urticaria also known as water allergy, named Heidi Falconer, who cannot drink plain water, so instead, she drinks milk, which causes her no harm. Are there any water molecules in milk, or does the act of mixing water molecules with other things cause the water molecules to become a different compound? She claims she is allergic to the water molecule itself and not to chemicals or allergens in water.

There is a celebrity with Aquagenic Urticaria (water allergy), named Heidi Falconer, who cannot drink plain water, so instead, she drinks milk, which causes her no harm. Are there any water molecules in milk, or does the act of mixing water molecules with other things cause the water molecules to become a different compound?

I checked out r/skeptic and was downvoted to hell for replying that I didn’t think all republicans are fascists.

Besides this sub, do you know any other subs focused on more scientific skepticism and not political ideology?

I see only inquisitors of materialism who not only reject everything that cannot be measured or calculated, but already want to prevent thinking about such things.

In doing so, they invoke science, but that is wrong. They do not want free research, but degrade science to the handmaiden of the state and the market.

Their favorite argument is that research into unusual phenomena should be refrained from if common sense argues against it, because otherwise it would be a waste of money. By common sense, of course, they mean that of a materialist.

I have had enough of these liars. Where are the skeptics who deserve this name and do not abuse it?

Feeling skeptical about life? How do we know that what we perceive is real? I don't trust religion or science since it's all made up by humans. For science, i know there's proof, but i still have this odd feeling that it's all just an assumption and fake. I'm doubting my own brain and it's ability to think.

Surely for any prediction, psychic or otherwise, to have credibility, it must be one in the first place. Sometimes I see clairvoyants, tarot readers etc who, to me, are not predicting. First, there has to be some specificity. What to me is NOT a prediction:

[1] There will be more hurricanes than normal this year in the US.

[2] Joe Biden will have health problems soon.

[3] I see a death in the British Royal Family.

[4] Space travel and space technology will become affordable for anyone.

If there's any checklist of successful predictions it needs to be specific predictions with no wriggle room. Ideally a date, specific event and place. Has anyone put together a database of predictions from people who are actually predicting in this way?

EDIT- Normally I avoid using the term "ENERGY" when speaking about this phenomena so I don't get lazy rebuttals about the definition of energy in the physics/engineering sense, joules and such. Seems that when I wrote this I used the label quite a bit, but I mean the "sensation of energy" and not something that can be used to heat water or lift a weight or excite an election.

I ask because in my experience most skeptics aren't skeptical equally, rather they protect the status quo against and change.

Most aren't interested in truth, and if presented with something that was outside of the ordinary would rather deny it or ignore it or "debunk" it in the most bunk manner.

So if anyone is actually genuine, I have made a most improbable sounding discovery, one which most skeptics would ignore out of hand which as you will see is essentially a pun.

Physics cannot rule out the existence of as yet undiscovered phenomena, indeed it is believed that such exists by many prominent physicists if not essentially all.

I have found that certain designs that could be compared with the terms shape power, sacred geometry, pyramid power and the like can manifest a tangible energy, but my designs are such that even images on a screen can manifest a tangible effect.

I do not for a second think that this should sound very plausible to our sensibilities, but on further analysis why not? Matter is mostly empty space and the rest is all EM fields, light in theory also possesses a gravity field however miniscule and can push on and cut matter.

So the claim is make is that the some of the below images will produce an energy that at least half the population can feel emit an energy!

No, this isn't magic, delusion, fantasy or a joke, but don't give your opinion until you try it!

To feel the energy, spend a minute with the image, put your hand in front of the screen moving it closer and further from the screen surface with you hand flat and somewhat tensed, center of your palm centered over the center of the design ideally.

​

https://preview.redd.it/alj60dunu2s81.png?width=457&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf44f5c815ada8d2d812509a2eb1bfeb6607b188

Or try this design:

https://preview.redd.it/ja0z2c7tu2s81.png?width=322&format=png&auto=webp&s=5854d498c9dbaf71147b5d085cd38c0cabcee526

With this next one, focus on the cyan/turquoise cross.

​

https://preview.redd.it/w6bqblocz2s81.png?width=304&format=png&auto=webp&s=f805772e9403eddafcaf1aa6f3228cd6b2c50ad5

So why should I bring this up?

Well, if you can feel it and recognize the reality of the phenomena (it cannot be a placebo effect, that has been utterly discounted) then there is very good reason to believe that this technology can open a world of possibilities that can advance mankind further than we can imagine with current technology.

But the skepticism of the scientific world is an issue, but can a skeptic see the light?

that is what I am here to find out, I assume not, but why not give it a shot.

Mormonism teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by a physically warm feeling in the body. Some Mormons report never feeling this, others say they’ve very strongly experienced it. When i was an evangelical Christian, there would be times i would feel a warmth in the neck during worship or missions. Now I’m an atheist, and fully believe it was just getting caught up in the emotion of the moment. But I’m very curious about the physiological causes of this phenomenon. I tried Google but didn’t find anything

I remember a post back in the mid 2000s on an old skeptic forum with the same title. Anyways Self-Help books are usually worthless but the 8 or 9 books recommended to me there were actually really good. Hoping to see the same results here.

Yes, I am talking about THAT society established in 1882 in England. Or SPR as I will call it.

Anyway. About 5 years ago I submitted a formal report to SPR. I went through the proper channels, contacting a member of staff at SPR. We had a chain of emails and they expressed interest in my submission. It was NOT something unsolicited that I dumped onto them. Then I emailed my report to them. I included a written document and a drawing.

Their response was that they had never come across my experience before; succinctly, it was a serious claim of experiencing inter dimensional travel. You can scoff if you want. Then they asked me for permission to give my report to someone else in their SPR. I said yes.

That new person, a psychologist, said that it was adolescent brain development. He had no interest in reading my report. Nor did he ask me a single question IN SPITE OF ME HAVING PUT IN THE REPORT THAT I WAS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION INCLUDING SKEPTICAL QUESTIONS.

Let's ponder this for a moment. This is a "research" society. Imagine if you were a research supervisor. Your student has one person whose experiences are central to the research. Not only do you have the opportunity to ask this person stuff; that person WANTS to be asked stuff. Yet you do not aslk that person anything and hand your assessment of THEIR experiences to your supervisor. What mark would you give this student? Let's have thinking music.

Yes! You got it right! F, not complete, not awarded. If that represents the SPR's "research" then they lose all right tobe called any kind of serious research group; they are no better than the detritus of click bait wannabee occultists on YouTube.

I still regard my submitted experience as being valid. I have considered all alternatives; indeed, my report to SPR went through alternatives such as tiredness, medical conditions, chemical influences etc at length.

The SPR conducts what I call lazy skepticism. The skeptic just says "it's the mind plaYING TRICKS" 20 times. THen they retrofit anything, however cookie cuttered and contrived, to fit the desired "skeptical" aim. Nobody, including in this forum, will get away with such laziness. When a good faith claim is made the skeptic is required to follow evidence. There will be no liberties for the skeptic here.

This may be a strange question , but anyway:

A couple of years ago i discussed some of those over the top biblical events, like the three days of darkness from the apocalypse and as part of the ten plagues in egypt.

So i wonder, is something like that possible, is there a "real life" way to create inpenetrable darkness?
Is it possible to do something to the air so it wont let light pass, without affecting the quality of the air?

I know it sounds absurd but in this article: https://frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1998/SimConEx.98.html

It seems to have some evidence. He basically uses mathematical realism, a Platonic concept, and uses this to say all objects are calculating at all times. Surely the argument must be flawed, I'm just now sure where

Tl;dr: Hans Moravec has explored the simulation hypothesis and has argued for a kind of mathematical Platonism according to which every object (including, for example, a stone) can be regarded as implementing every possible computation.