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?

Is this along with flat earth, Chemtrails, Jewish conspiracies etc? I'd rather believe academic than Brad sitting in his mums spare room aged 52 producing YouTubes.

A few years ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with listening to academics.

Until I saw some of the utter hogwash spouted a few years ago by too many of them. The science was indisputable (sex is real) and yet they peddled such magical crap I've had to read anything from an academic through a lens and cross checking everything since.

Even within academic research there are different levels of 'knowing' with double blind randomised controlled trials considered the most trustworthy and 'expert witness' less trustworthy.

Every source of knowledge is open to critical appraisal.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

I don’t think you’d get one without the other would you? If there was well researched accounts of demons then academics would do in depth qualitative type research with those people and publish papers. Obviously if all the people who said they’d seen demons were mentally ill or on drugs they might not bother but they’d be trying to determine the trustworthiness of the witnesses.

An academic who asserts they don't exist isn't a good academic. As others have said, they can say there is no evidence, but they can't say categorically that they don't exist.

You’ve also got to remember that a lot of academics especially in the social sciences are left wing, woke types. I say that as an ex criminologist. Everyone loves yapping about subcultural theories and whether they’re a social construct or indeed redundant. And yes as a name “chav” is a social construct, doesn’t mean that the people who fit into that category aren’t real.

And while there are academic papers saying that the construction of a chav subculture was/is a way of demonising the working classes there are also papers where academics have interviewed “chavs”, so they must think they exist.

Gosh yes, it’s ergot. Doh. No, I haven’t watched that. I read about st Vitus’ dance years ago, and St Anthony’s fire.

I think it was an X files episode as well?

Morning, everyone. We've seen the OP to the door who looked to be a previously banned poster as a few of you spotted.