I find it interesting that so many are troubled when their beliefs are challenged. I know many here seem to have a deep-set dislike and distrust of science which seems odd to me since the entire VR experience would be completely impossible without computers and the Internet and both would have been impossible without science.
I suggest most should take a lesson from science. When a new belief enters the science realm the first thing it must endure is a barrage of challenges. That's the whole point behind drafting a hypothesis and submitting it for peer review. And while most are hopeful that their conclusions will survive the barrage of challenges, if it doesn't, it's because it was flawed and/or wrong. Why would people want to continue running around holding beliefs which are demonstrably wrong? Some seem to think that anything they can whip up in their imagination is somehow beyond the realm of discussion unless those who engage in discussion are favorable to the idea. Where else does that happen? Why should that happen?
If someone thinks that Ford manufactures paper plates and Chevrolet is a kind of flower, why is it wrong to demonstrate the error of those beliefs?
But as far as vampires are concerned, I don't limit the concept strictly to classical stereotypical creatures of the night who cast no reflection, cower from sunlight and garlic and turn into bats. I recognize that some people do have a fascination with blood, prefer night to day and perhaps have other interests which deviate from what society deems as the norm. So I tend not to challenge anyone who suggests they're a vampire. But that's not the topic I usually see when people begin to complain that their beliefs are being challenged instead of being massaged and coddled. These complaints seem to follow challenges to claims about spirits, ghosts, psychics and hauntings.
So why is it that people who claim to study or embrace such things are so opposed to holding correct and supportable information? Why would anyone wish to study a false fantasy and complain when accurate information is provided?
Energy is a part of the physical world. It's detectable, measurable and producible. So why do so many use the word to describe something that's supposed to be non-physical and undetectable via objective means? I tend to believe it's because it's a handy word used to describe their own heightened awareness when they believe something they can't explain is in their vicinity. But it's clearly not energy. So what's wrong with pointing that out? What's wrong with offering suggestions which are consistent with the evidence and provide a probable explanation?
Sight relies on human eyes and human eyes are photon detectors with some ability to distinguish wavelengths of electromagnetic energy within a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. So when someone says they've "seen" something that is supposed to be non-physical, why is it wrong in their mind for someone to point out that photons are physical and bounce from things which are physical? Non-physical things can't be seen because they wouldn't comply with the necessary mechanisms for sight to occur. When people insist on describing the non-physical through physical means, it seems they're on the wrong track. And yet if they're shown that their descriptions are inconsistent with the non-physical, they insist they're being attacked. It's not an attack to correct erroneous conclusions.
If you think you're headed North on the Interstate and someone points out that you're actually headed South, they're not attacking you. They're saving you a lot of back-tracking. If your male buddy starts to walk into the Women's room by mistake, go ahead and tell him. If he gets angry for being corrected rather than appreciating the embarrassment he's been saved, you've learned something about the fragile nature of his ego.
If people really want to study the paranormal you might expect them to want to know the difference between a haunting and a puff of dust from a ventilation shaft. You might expect them to want to know the difference between an allergy and the presence of a spirit. If they don't want to know these things then I don't see that they have any valid claim to wanting to study anything. They just want everyone to feed their fantasies.
Nothing can ever be confirmed to be true unless challenged by alternative explanations. If someone becomes angry because other explanations are provided, they're not interested in studying reality; truth is not what they want. They're only interested in having their fantasies promoted and perpetuated. Healthy discussion is a necessity when extracting reality from subjective fantasy. Without it, everyone simply runs around thinking whatever they want to think, spreading false claims and looking not at all impressive to those they encounter. The more someone insists that a demonstrably false claim is true, the more firm becomes the demonstration to the contrary. It's still not an attack and not at all inappropriate especially if one actually has an interest in reality.
