If academic sources say that demons are a myth, but online, everyone seemed adamant that demons are real, which would you believe? The academic sources, or the anecdotes?

[ColinWhoIsNotAChav]

Let's say that academic sources and books written by scholars say demons are just a myth

People chime in with their own experiences with demons, not figuratively but in the literal sense

People are adamant that demons are real

Yet academic sources say the opposite, for example that demons were made up by some guy x amount of years ago so that people could be controlled with fear

Which would you believe?

I’d keep my mind open. I’d look at who funded the research and other research areas of the authors of the academic literature. I appreciate science is always evolving and it’s hard to prove a negative.

I don’t think this post is about demons. It’s an analogy

I am an academic. I am well aware that a not insignificant number of academics in certain disciplines write from an activist, rather than rigorous (whether critically or scientifically) perspective. So, no, I wouldn’t hold an academic source - or even a whole body of academic writing - to be infallible, necessarily.

I don't think demons exist, but fruit and nut cases do.

This sort of “academic sources” is more like history research, rather than eg lots of scientific testing.

I’d be inclined to give a lot of weight to academic sources because people say all sorts of made up nonsense, especially about aliens and demons and angels and witches. Some seriously believe it. I don’t but probably not because I read an academic paper telling me about it. But if the anecdotes were properly tested as part of a study, then there were multiple studies, carefully assessed, then it might be interesting.

If this is about Owen Jones, he doesn’t believe that women are real in any material sense, so his grasp on what exists or doesn’t is pretty limited, I would say.

Academic sources would vary depending on their field. It’s rare all academic sources say the same thing. It’s even rarer an academic source would say a phenomenon simply
does not exist. It’s far more likely it would find no/little evidence instead, in which case that leaves room for the anecdotal evidence. It also of course depends on the credibility of that anecdotal evidence.

i dont think whatever you’re trying to prove quite works with this analogy or that you know enough about academic research to assess its value.

It's not an anecdote when you live close to them; it is experience. This was explained to you on your other thread.

If demons were constantly hanging around outside my local shop, leaving their stolen bikes lying on the street and blocking the entrance to the shop, and shouting racist slurs at the family who work there when asked to move the bikes, then yes, I would believe in them even if Owen Jones told me they were made up.

Also, I told you on your last thread. Satan is real. I live with him; he simultaneously wants to eat your soul and receive constant attention. You can appease him with chicken nuggets, but you must peel them firs,t or he will be sad.

If you are literally talking about demons, then academics. If this is some sort of analogy, then it depends, but I wouldn't hold 'academics' in some sort of exalted state of esteem, particularly because of some of the tales of 'peer reviewed journals' I have heard about recently.

Well... neither completely?
I'd think if so many people were experiencing something there would need to be a reason for it and that perhaps there was some explanation that the academics just hadn't got to yet..
I wouldn't believe or disbelieve anyone purely because of their status. I think it's important to keep an open mind.
I don't think everybody in any field all agree on anything anyway. Academics don't all agree with each other and people online DEFINITELY do not all habe the same opinions and/or interpretations of their experiences.
I'd just say 'I'm not sure then'.
I think that about ghosts. Scientists mostly say they don't exist so I guess that would be my expectation.. however some people do have strange experiences I think are interesting. So I'm always open to the idea something might be going on we just haven't identified yet.

Academics who were specialists in that field, and ideally who had done relevant research. But I say that with much less confidence than I would have done in the past, because of the ongoing transgender fiasco. I put far less trust in academics now. I'd consider whether they had an ulterior motive for saying what they were saying - eg was a particular academic who came out strongly against the existence of demons funded by the Anti-Demon Corporation, or did he or she have a DC who was an active member of The Evangelical Church of Demonology?

I think people believe in demons because of religion mainly. What people say online shouldn’t be given much weight. People say any rubbish and find people who validate them.
Academic sources should be given best considerations but “spiritual” and “spirituality” is something and can’t be quantified or studied with data or evidence.
If you’re using this as an analogy then I stand by my point that there’s all sorts of rubbish online and with the ease of making false videos using ai, people need to be careful about what they’re seeing and actually looking into to it to see if the information is genuine and reputable.

people need to be careful about what they're seeing and actually looking into it to see if the information is genuine and reputable

People will see what they want to see. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

How much academic research into demons actually exists?

Academic or scientific?

I wouldn't necessarily 'believe' either, there's a whole world of evidence and theory in between and beyond people on the internet and academics specifically. I don't need to read one thing from either and make a judgement at that exact point.

I would look at the evidence being offered and make a decision based on the quality of the evidence and the argument surrounding the conclusion.

One can only do that if one has sufficient expertise in the matter at hand.

Every mystery ever solved has been not magic, not demons, not ghosts. I’ll stick with the academics, thanks!

I'd believe academics over anonymous online posts with no evidence to back them up, especially in the age of deepfake videos, and the use of AI to produce information summaries which are sometimes deeply flawed.

That said, if several people I knew and trusted were adamant that they'd seen demons, I wouldn't dismiss their accounts out of hand - I'd want to know more.

PS. What's Owen gone and said now?

So you’re asking whether I should trust the words of academics - smart people who have devoted their lives to studying a phenomenon and achieved the highest qualification it was possible to achieve in that subject, had their research on the phenomenon published in peer reviewed journals, and actually make a living researching and teaching that topic as a full time job; or whether I should believe the Facebook posts of Paul who works in accounts at the local builder’s merchants and whittles owls in his spare time? Hmm, tough one 🤪

This x10,000

What a load of old shite.

Is this a clunky analogy for migration, crime, climate change or what?

In any case, go with the academics. Social media is about the worst source of evidence-based information we have at the moment. AI, bots and sponsored posts have totally muddied the water on social media.

While yes there are biases and agendas being pushed in academia there is at least a system of checks and balances before something gets published.

Are academics not people?