I mean it’s not that real paranormal researchers advertize, like “The Amazing Randi…”
It’s easy to quote someone who does a lot of self-promotion, while true researchers are a bit too busy for that nonsense.
Oops, must have hit the wrong buttons. SBT 
So, over the years, have any of these “real” scientists come up with anything pertaining to the topic of this thread? If so, what did they find? If not, how many more years are you going to wait until you come to the conclusion that there probably isn’t anything to find?
As I’ve already stated earlier: I have not seen any solid scientific evidence that “ghosts” exist, and given the current advancement of our science, as I said, I don’t think they can be proven to exist. I don’t think there are any current breakthroughs, but I’ll keep my ears open.
As to “over the years,” there’s been lots of scientists doing research in the field. I’ve heard that some have uncovered results that are difficult (Impossible) to explain with our current scientific convention, and others (like Targ & Puthoff) have produced disputable results, but I don’t keep track of them. Does that mean I can’t debate the subject? I certainly haven’t heard that research into the paranormal has been suspended…
If you’re going to ask me ‘how long I’m going to wait before I change my mind,’ well. I think that is more appropriate for another forum, don’t you think? Like IMHO? But, since you asked, I’ll answer you.
I’m never giving up on science.
I’m never going to say that science won’t find answers to things that we’ve been puzzling about for thousands of years. I feel confident that as science advances, they will be able to explain currently inexplicable phenomenon. I feel confident also that someday science will have us visiting other planets, and that science will figure out the current anomalies in field theory, and many, many other things.
I’m not going to give up on science because a self-proclaimed charlatan says “we shouldn’t believe because look at all these fakes I found.” Any more than I’m going to give up on science because a fundamentalist tells me that God doesn’t want us to travel to “the heavens because the bible says so.”
Science is about exploration; exploration is about the unknown – making it known. So, as long as there are still things that beg explanation, I’m going to look to science for explanations.
It’s easy to give up. It’s easy to dismiss things as “impossible.” And it’s apparently popular, too. It’s harder to keep looking for answers; especially in an unpopular field. Especially in the face of failure.
What if that ‘final proof’ is just one experiment off? What if it’s 100 experiments off? When should we stop looking for ‘cold fusion’ or ‘dark matter’ or ‘quantum strings?’ When should we stop looking for mind or consciousness or any of the thousands of other things we can’t fully explain yet? Or spirits, or ghosts, or whatever it is that fills Fish’s ‘definition under duress’ of ghosts?
Well, if you want to give up, you go right ahead. That’s your right. You’re entitled to your opinion. You’re entitled to say that no experiment has proven that “ghosts” exist, and as far as I know, that’s right. Doesn’t mean it will always be so. I will wait forever to see what science brings me, because it hasn’t stopped amazing and surprising me yet.
And who does it hurt? I’m not forcing anyone to believe or disbelieve anything. I’m not claiming anything that is not, I’m just allowing for the possibility that it may be. And allowing for possibilities is the foundation of discovery.
Thanks for asking.
Can you explain any scenario where they couldn’t be proven to exist, if they really did, and their existence had some effect on our material world?
That’s fair, but with paranormal researchers, they’re not even to the point yet of looking for explanations, they’re looking for something that would need explaining. And after decades of effort, they have nothing.
Not sure I really understand what you’re asking. I think eventually we will be able to explain/prove these phenomenon, not necessarily that they will be what we have come to believe they are; it’s just out science isn’t up to it yet.
I’m not sure that’s true, as I don’t follow these guys around. And as for ‘looking for something that needs explaining,’ yes, that’s true. These are usually transient and rare phenomenon. Most cases don’t lend themselves to being ‘put under the microscope’ as it were. It’s not an easy phenomenon to study, not that this has ever stopped us before.
For instance, science has been studying claims of extraterrestrials for decades, and have found nothing. Hasn’t stopped them either.
The unfortunate part of both these fields is that they both attract the attention of those who insist they are in the middle of the experience without any tractable proof. On the internet you can find whole classifications of extraterrestrials that people insist exist and who have infiltrated our government, etc.
Paranormal phenomenon has attracted similar claims: mediums, spirit healers, spoon benders, people who attribute spiritual causes to mundane phenomenon (orbs), and a myriad more who give the study of unexplained phenomenon a bad name. That’s why I earlier conceded to Czar that even a showman like “The Amazing Randi” has a purpose. He separates the self-deluded and the frauds out from the rest. Unfortunately even he has a negative backlash; people consequently and incorrectly assume that since there are a few frauds and kooks, that it’s all fraud and misinterpretation. Which makes working in the field that much more difficult.
Yes, there’s a phenomenon out there that that begs interpretation, investigation and explanation. Thankfully there are a few brave enough to step up to the plate in spite of the brickbats being hurled, and one of these days perhaps one of them will be able to tell us something useful. I applaud them.
Would you consider your being suddenly struck dead similarly to Ananias and Sappphira as adequae proof? (Acts 5: 1-11)
Well, first of all we’d have to talk to Peter, and determine with him what he supposes the Holy Spirit will do, so we can compare the prediction with the results. We’d have to monitor the proceedings with high speed cameras, infra red, UV, set up detectors for temperature, energy fluctuations, etc. Then we’d have to do an autopsy: what was the cause of death? Then we’d have to bring in “The Amazing Randi” so he could determine if some sort of trickery were involved. Then we’d have to demand a full-fledged (pun intended) appearance of the Holy Spirit for questioning as to whether he/she/it really exists (testimony) then if so did he/she/it really cause those deaths, and in which manner, and if he/she/it can prove that, after which charged may need to be filed.
No. Likely it was coincidence, due to the great stress at being caught in a lie.
I wish I could use a Wally in Great Debates.
What Rest?!? This directly implies that there are authentic cases that are left once the frauds and self-deluded are subtracted.
Are… or will be.
Or not.
Point taken. I don’t claim to be able to fortell the future. Based on the past successes of science I trust that someday they will be able to explain that which is currently inexplicable. I’m patient.
Or maybe it’s not currently inexplicable. Maybe people are just mistaken when they think they experience something paranormal. Maybe that’s why there’s no real evidence of anything that cannot be explained by ordinary psychological factors (and I do mean ordinary things like the nocebo/placebo effect, not craziness) and reasoning mistakes.
I’m not as closed to the possibility of “something else” as you might imagine. In my younger days it was a topic I found very interesting. But all my reading on the subject turned up nothing really worth treating as a mystery unless you’re willing to take unsubstantiated anecdotes (usually full of faulty logic) as evidence. I was willing to do this when I was younger, but I am not now. As the old paranormal investigation joke goes, the search for intelligent life on earth continues, and even quite intelligent people cannot always be trusted to look at unusual events cool-headedly. I don’t know that I would be able to if something that seemed really weird happened to me.
I think it’s positively goofy that the skeptics on this board feel they have won this argument when their only opponents are Snakespirit and myself.
Although Snake and I do our best to frame the argument in favor of ghosts, we simply don’t have access to the information and experience a real expert would have. Those who are naive enough to say that ghost researchers have come up with nothing after “all this time” are simply being lazy and/or wishful thinkers. There are many big, documented cases out there that had members of the press as well as scientific-minded people convinced that ghosts or related phenomena are real. They saw and heard things themselves that could not be explained.The Enfield Poltergeist is just one among many.
One may study a number of these cases and come to the conclusion that, ultimately, they do not indicate that phenomena are occuring outside the human mind. But to say, “No evidence exists,” is nothing more than a lie. It’s the skeptical low road. Taking the high road consists of examining the cases while explaining how the phenomena are explained as occuring in the mind. It’s a big job, and it also involves explaining how the alleged physical traces of the phenomena (photos, EVPs, etc.) relate to the mental phenomena.
To blow off ghost phenomena as “just something people think up” is about as scientifically rigorous and useful as calling dreams “just something people think up.” Dreams are a fascinating phenomena about which we really know very little, and, at the very least, so are ghosts. For ghosts (if we assume the skeptical perspective) are not mere hallucinations; they are a type of hallucination that is experienced in every culture, and which is accompanied everywhere by the same type of myth. A real scientist would be curious.
The fact that the position of many of the self-styled skeptics of this board is, “Oh, that’s turned up nothing. That’s bullshit. Don’t bother thinking about that,” should give those same persons pause. Does real science and skepticism consist of a superficial debunking of the other side’s position? Or does it embrace a genuine curiosity that seeks to find what truth lies beneath the unproven claims? I find the attitude of many here discouraging. If this is the best that skepticism has to offer, then human cognition is itself highly problematic.
The claim that, since no experiment as yet reliably demonstrates the existence of ghosts, none could ever be formulated is particularly dimwitted. Consider the neutrino, until recently merely a theoretical entity. A neutrino is so small, so fine a particle, that it is said that one could pass through a solid light-year of lead without ever striking another particle. So there’s no way to find 'em, right? But clever people stuck drums of water way down in some mines and did so.
I work with a group of people who use a device that regularly produces paranormal photographs. Regularly. Spirit faces (often quite clear) appear superimposed on that of the person whose picture is being taken. The device itself has nothing to do with the photographic equipment, which usually consists of a regular Polaroid camera. In fact the device just sits there and never touches either the persons involved or the photographic equipment.
These pictures are not fakeable. They taken right in front of people and, being Polaroids, are developed right in front of people’s eyes. (I have not been able to see this happen myself as I’ve been in Japan, but other people like myself in the group have participated.)
Are these pictures amazing? Yes. They blow my mind. They prove one of two things, probably both: A. Spirits and the afterlife are real; B. There are optical phenomena that are completely beyond our current understanding. I should like to see a skeptic explain how ordinary Polaroid film in the presence of this device (which to all appearances is just a box blowing air) can develop before one’s eyes with all manner of sparks, streaks, ribbons, distortions, and, in many cases, clear faces of people who obviously were not present when the picture was taken.
No, I’m not going to provide any links to these photos, as I am undesirous of the typical uncritical ridicule that one receives from certain participants in these paranormal debates. These people are my friends and colleagues. Another thing that skeptics don’t understand is that most New Age people engaged in such research are not out to impress the scientific community or debunk debunkers like Randi. They are spiritual seekers. They also feel that engaging with skeptics who use ridicule as a tactic only attracts poisonous vibrations that disturb their delicate work. Skeptics scoff at this attitude, but, I repeat, New Agers simply aren’t listening to you any more, precisely because you scoff.
Skeptics have created one reality (or information zone) for themselves, thoroughly cordoned off from the very people and phenomena they wish to debunk. People like myself who have stepped into the stream (“believers”) see that the water is good, pure, and flowing in a desirable direction. To us, the skeptics are negative, close-minded, and themselves possessed of a peculiar religion that defines Reality as being thus and merely thus.
There is an odd parallel with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who rap on your door and ask whether you’ve ever heard of Jesus and the Holy Bible. Duh. But skeptics never seem to get that New Agers have already considered the arguments against their “irrational beliefs.” Have you ever heard of evidence? Experiments? Occam’s razor? THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!
Duh.
So the two sides aren’t really talking to each other. These paranormal threads seem to be fun for the skeptics, but I know they are pure frustration for me and I suspect that Snakespirit feels the same way. I understand what you think about my New Age beliefs. I don’t think you understand what I think about skepticism as a belief system.
The upshot is that New Agers see and understand the skeptics, while the skeptics are dealing only with self-created charicatures of the New Agers. In the end, it may be that our belief system is tossed into the dustbin of history. But the fact remains that, at this point in time, we are the ones with our eyes open and seeking to understand both sides.
Do they really? Then why do they keep trying to disprove everything we say? (By inference, rather than evidence, I must add.)
There’s lots of “Unexplained phenomenon.” And if we dismiss it all as, well, whatever the cynics are dismissing it as these days, then how can we ever learn anything???
(Hint: we can’t!)
Sssssss
If you think you do that bad a job of representing your side, why are you bothering at all?
*Sleep paralysis alone could explain a huge number of experiences that people mistake for paranormal. In college an acquaintance of mine recounted a story about how friend of hers was “attacked by a demon”, and apparently expected others to treat this as proof of something extraordinary. The friend was on his bed listening to music but “not asleep”, when suddenly he felt an evil presence, heard an unintelligable voice speaking to him in menacing tones, and found himself unable to move. Setting aside the fact that this was a secondhand account, the event as she described it was completely consistent with sleep paralysis. It sounded like a textbook case to me. Sleep paralysis is a subject worthy of further research, but chasing demons isn’t going to bring us any closer to understanding something that’s completely neurological.
*Well, actually, in most cases it probably involves no such thing. The majority seem to have nothing that could be claimed as physical evidence in the first place. For most of the rest, well, plenty of people are convinced they’ve found “subliminal sex messages” in Disney animated films too. With very few exceptions (like the small image of the topless woman in the original The Rescuers), these people are mistaken. Finding something “ghostly” in a photo or tape recording must be even easier, since almost any blur or hiss could be considered a hit. Many of the clearer photos of ghosts, fairies, and UFOs are eventually proven to be fakes. This seems to pretty well explain the so-called “physical evidence”. Could there be other explanations in some cases? Perhaps, but I have yet to see anything that demands one.
*It’s funny how you put that phrase in quotes, as if it were something that someone had previously said. I can only guess that this might be your paraphrase of my statement “Maybe people are just mistaken when they think they experience something paranormal”, but if that’s the case then you’re badly misrepresenting me.
*There’s a lot more known about dreams than about ghosts. Although admittedly this is not a difficult accomplishment.
*What kind of hallucination isn’t experienced in every culture? Hallucinations occur inside the brain, which doesn’t vary a heck of a lot from person to person or culture to culture. Sleep paralysis certainly occurs among members of every culture. Drug-induced hallucinations naturally wouldn’t occur in cultures without access to the necessary substances, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that all ghost stories were triggered by bad trips. I don’t think anyone is even suggesting that they’re necessarily all hallucinations rather than illusions.
Actually, I am curious to hear what your guesss is.
You raise an excellent example. A lot of people in Japan think of sleep paralysis as a weird, paranormal phenomenon.
BUT, there is also an issue within the issue, many New Agers think that dreams can be more than mere neurological activity, and this may apply to sleep paralysis as well. The fact that phenomena are common does not mean that a further understanding of them will not change our current scientific worldview. This is part of the larger point I am trying to make.
But by definition people are “claiming” them as physical evidence. So, do you mean to say that the majority of them may easily be dismissed? I would agree that a large percent, but perhaps not the majority would be. But at the same time the vast majority of them would not be particularly compelling as individual pieces.
This is a misrepresentation. The type of ghost photos that tend to be compelling are not private affairs in which the photographer just happens to “see” something. No, they contain gross anomalies that require explanation.
If you are saying this, then you are not aware of how these things are discussed by the researchers themselves. In a word, you are ignorant.
This is a typical tactic: lumping all these things together, as though the concatenation itself will cause one term to contaminate the others. When were we talking about fairies or UFOs? Stick to the debate. As to the assertion that most clear pictures of ghosts are proven to be fakes, that’s nothing more than a colon-pulled statement of faith on your part. As you know or ought to know, there are famous ghost photos whose negatives have been examined, etc. etc., and no fakery has been demonstrated. These are printed again and again in books on the topic.
Oh yeah, I can tell that you’ve really engaged with the evidence. I also told you about the spirit photos that people I know are producing, but you ignored that.
Nope. Wasn’t thinking about you when I wrote it.
I called them neither. I said that, at the very least, they are a phenomena that occurs in the mind. I also claimed that there is a myth (viewed from the skeptic perspective) that accompanies the phenomenon that is consistent across cultures.
We’re still not talking to each other, it seems.
Aeschines,
I’m sure you genuinely believe there is some evidence of ghosts.
Your problem is that the rest of us don’t know what it is.
From your post above:
- The Enfield Poltergeist link
‘While the gravelly voice was determined to indeed be coming from Janets’ throat’
‘Other researchers from the SPR came to investigate, but when they came into Janet’s room to observe, they were made to stand facing away from the children, only to be hit with objects while the children giggled.’
Is this supposed to be a serious investigation?
We know who was doing the voice!
And psychic ‘researchers’ have to stand with their backs to giggling children, get hit with objects and the only explanation is ghosts?!
That link continues
‘I tend to believe that perhaps it may have started with some unexplained occurrences, and that the children then perpetuated a hoax for the attention it brought them.’
‘Another fact that seems to bear out it being a possible hoax was the sudden cessation of activity after two years, allowing the family to return to a normal life.’
-
Yes, neutrinos were difficult to detect. But scientists had reason to think they existed, did scientific tests and proved it. Now both you and I accept their existence.
Ghosts have been claimed for centuries. When is the first test going to succeed? -
'I work with a group of people who use a device that regularly produces paranormal photographs. Regularly. Spirit faces (often quite clear) appear superimposed on that of the person whose picture is being taken. ’
OK, that’s evidence!
So are scientists going to be invited to examine the evidence?
Are you going to claim $1,000,000 from the Randi foundation? (I assure you this qualifies for the award!)
‘No, I’m not going to provide any links to these photos, as I am undesirous of the typical uncritical ridicule that one receives from certain participants in these paranormal debates.’
But if the evidence holds up, those critics will have to swallow their insults.
And you will be a millionaire as well!
Lots of people enjoy wasting their time on the Internet. Goodness knows I do.
No, I mean to say exactly what I said. In the majority of cases where people claim to have experienced a paranormal phenomenon they don’t also claim that they have physical evidence. Plenty of people say they’ve seen or heard a ghost, precious few say they’ve got photos or audio recordings. This is unsurprising no matter what explanation you believe their stories have, since most people don’t go around with a camera at the ready and most people’s first thought upon seeing something they believe to be a ghost wouldn’t be “This’ll make a great photo!” Regardless, the majority of alleged ghost sightings have nothing that could be claimed as physical evidence. There is thus no need to explain the physical evidence in these cases.
*Plenty of people would say the same about the “penis” on the cover of The Little Mermaid.
*Funny, I don’t recall saying anything about researchers at all. The quote from you about photos and EVPs that I was responding to certainly didn’t.
*You played quite a large role in moving this discussion away from the topic of ghosts per se before I even joined this thread. I don’t see where you get off objecting to one sentence that mentions other kinds of paranormal hoax photography along with ghosts.
*I do not see any contradiction between “most clear pictures of ghosts are proven to be fakes” and “there are famous ghost photos whose negatives have been examined, etc. etc., and no fakery has been demonstrated”.
*I was trying to be polite, although I must say my urges in that direction are beginning to wear thin. These spirit photos are obviously not a subject you want to debate. The only mystery is why you brought it up in the first place if you’re not going to show us the photos and refuse to hear anything negative about your buddies. But here’s a note for future reference: “People I know personally have done X, but I haven’t actually witnessed this myself and I’m not going to show you the photos” isn’t evidence. It’s barely even an anecdote.
*Or maybe you’re just not reading my posts very carefully.
Whereas I’m a warrior for the truth! :dubious:
Undeniable.
A spectral dick? I’m getting horny.
That is, serious researchers, or the kind of people I know, don’t consider every little blur and hiss significant.
[/quote]
OK, hoax photography. I see. Yes, there are hoaxes.
The framing seems wrong to me. Yes, there have been hoaxes, but I think a lot more clear pictures are out there than you suspect.
I’m shakingly sorry you feel that way.
“Why?” you ask. I’m asking you to consider the hypothetical of someone in my position who has seen what he thinks is convincing evidence. To you, who don’t know these people, the obvious retort would be (even were I to post the pics), “Oh this kinda crap can easily be hoaxed!” That’s true. But to me, who know these people and the history of the photographs, they can’t. It is, I think, interesting how our two perspectives are influenced by our relationship to the evidence and those who have produced it.
Of course not. But let’s try this thought experiment: If you saw the device produce extreme anomalies and/or spirit faces with your own Polaroid camera and film, what would you think?
Care is part of the reading process.