I’m not trying to be clever, I’m just trying to figure out what evidence you think I’m unwilling to examine. I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.
There is no evidence that I know of. But I’m just saying “what if” someone had an amazing ghostly experience, and caught everything on film, more than likely they would only reveal it on paranormal sites, where they would be least likely to be ridiculed.
So you’re saying anyone who doesn’t go combing through every single crackpot “paranormal” website on the internet and examining every single home video of every single ominous bedheet or cat sound is being “closed-minded.”
I don’t have the burden of proof, my dear. If anyone really has proof, it will find its way to the headlines. Until that happens, there is no reason to give any more credence to spooks than there is to elves or leprechauns- especially since it’s a claim that violates physical laws.
I think you seriously underestimate the value of such film.
There are TV channels that would pay a lot for such footage.
The Zapruder film of the Kennedy assasination brought in $16,000,000…
no
Why? Surely if someone had genuine, verifiable empirical evidence or undeniable experimental proof of a “ghost” that met all reasonable standards of scientific scepticism - scepticism and standards, remember, that science applies to itself - it would be the coup of the millennia. Why wouldn’t I shout it from the rooftops, if I were confident in my claims?
The fact that such “evidence” - which, as far as I’ve seen, generally consists of “late-one-night in Grandma’s house” anecdotes, blurred photographs and murky recordings - only crops up on credulousloony.com is only a commentary on the quality of the data, not the value of a bona fide investigative process for unusual claims.
Similarly, if I have genuinely discovered a hitherto unknown process for, oh, let’s say producing a limitless source of energy in a jam jar using only common household ingredients, and I’m confident that my method will stand up to external scrutiny, I’d be a fool not to submit a paper to Nature rather than posting it on thingsthegovernmentdoesn’twantyoutoknow.com.
The fact that I don’t, and choose instead to hide behind a veil of mutterings about “closed minds” and “the blinkered establishment”, not to mention “vested interests” and “suppression” speaks more, I’m afraid, about the value of my claims than the validity of the scientific process for verifying the truth.
No, they really won’t.
Can you think of an example where this is the case?
Really, Batsinma, have you read either of my posts, or have you just been paying attention to Diogenes?
Video on a website is not going to convince me of anything. I don’t know jack shit about video except one thing–it’s really easy to fake. What would convince me is unanimous testimony from numerous unbiased video experts that a convincing ghost video wasn’t faked, or caused by any other known phenomenon. I wouldn’t even have to see the video myself. But I’m not going to find that on batshitinsane.com, am I?
Do you spend hours each day poring over professional videographer and FX forums and webpages since that’s where any evidence will really show up? If not, why do you actively avoid the places where proof might be found?
Okay, I think this is where things went pear-shaped; what I meant to say was, IN MY OPINION, the paranormal is a subject that is more dismissed than discussed on the Straight Dope. I’m not planning to spend my time looking for cites, because this is simply my opinion, based on what I’ve seen in six years of reading threads here; I’m not trying to convince anybody else.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I wasn’t asking you to convince me that it’s hard to have that discussion here, featherlou. I was offering to actually have that discussion. What is it that you feel you can’t say without being dismissed?
Actually, the paranormal is often discussed and sometimes discussed at great length. I’ve been participating in those threads for years and I’ve never seen the skeptics say they were unwilling to discuss it. It’s always the believers who get huffy and flounce away. This thread is a perfect example.
Actually, I’m willing to claim, on behalf of the skeptics, that yes, we can be dismissive of certain claims. Let me summarize with a handy chart:
-
“This phenomenon has not been explained (by science, say).” Easy enough; we’re happy to talk about this at extended length. (Example: the physical nature of consciousness) Whether the original statement was right or wrong, we can at least agree on what we’re discussing and what would constitute “explanation.” Except in the case where this is a shorthand for:
-
“This phenomenon cannot be explained (by science).” Here you start to meet the dismissives in small numbers, because you’re making a fairly broad statement about the future capabilities of scientific inquiry. And in any case, this statement is often made about things which not only can be, but have been, explained – the stater just doesn’t like the explanation. (Example: Homeopathic remedies “working.”)
-
“This phenomenon is caused by <supernatural explanation>.” Now we (the skeptics) will dismiss you. In the absence of explanation, it is not the case that all explanations become equally likely. You can’t prove creationism by defeating evolution; you can’t prove ghosts by eliminating a few other explanations. As we repeat over and over: if you’re going to claim a very unlikely (and anything supernatural is unlikely) cause for a phenomenon over dozens or hundreds of more mundane explanations, that’s fine: but we’re not being dismissive when we ask you to provide, in great detail, your reasons why you dismissed the likely causes in favor of the unlikely. Nor is it unfair of us to claim that your reasons aren’t good enough if they rely entirely on human infallibility or truthfulness: because these have been demonstrated repeatedly not to be trustworthy. You need to produce evidence for your claim, and it needs to be evidence that will work equally well for a non-believer. This last clause is where almost all of the arguments start. Scientific explanations work (or don’t work) for everybody — religious, pseudoscientific, and supernatural explanations work only for believers.
The opinion you just expressed is flat out wrong and you know it. The paranormal is discussed at vast length. One of the single longest GD threads in the history of the boards was on the paranormal. There are few topics that are as likely to go to the third page.
There’s an elephant in the corner that you are not willing to acknowledge and it’s stopping you from speaking plainly about the content of the room.
and
What nonsense. They’d either sell it to a news channel (news channels have run poor, fuzzy inconclusive footage often enough) or put it on Youtube.
Saying that the paranormal could be out there but it just isn’t where skeptics look is a convenient excuse. It could be true. And there could be an IPU under my bed.
I don’t know which one of us you’re screeching at when you say " Saying that the paranormal could be out there but it just isn’t where skeptics look is a convenient excuse. It could be true. And there could be an IPU under my bed."
So, I’ll pretend it’s me…
Saying that something absolutely does not exist because nobody had the decency to put it where I could find it, is a convenient excuse. But, not as convenient as “It doesn’t exist because I said so, neener, neener.”
That’s because it’s an invisible, intangible, incorporeal elephant. But sometimes when I’m lying in bed I hear it trumpeting dolorously in the next room, and once I awoke to find it kneeling on the covers, looming over me. And its trunk stroked my thigh. The old lady who used to own the house told me that it was built on the old elephants’ graveyard, so maybe that explains it.
-
Few of us have ever said it “absolutely doesn’t exist.” What we say is that there isn’t any evidence that it exists and that the application of Occam’s Razor precludes the consideration of supernatural explanations before natural ones have been exhausted.
-
Nobody’s had the decency to put this imaginary proof where anybody can find it but that’s not our problem anway. The burden of proof rests with those making extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims are not entitled to a default presumption that both truth and falsity are equally plausible possiblities. The popular concept of ghosts (a concept which still has yet to be meaningfully defined) is in fact wildly improbable.
Do you think people are being closed-minded if they say that faeries are purely mythical creatures, or do they have an obligation to go poring through websites about the subject?
Weird… Since this has turned into a debate rather than the opinion poll that the OP seemed to want, was the OP maybe psychic and somehow knew?
Oooo… spooky!
Plus, the “you refuse to look at this” argument works much better if you’re waving it in my face. You’re daring me to look, give me something to look at. If not proof, then a link to the place you think it will most likely appear when it is available.
Agreed. When someone puts that position in this debate, I suggest you raise this point again. In the meantime, do you have anything to say concerning my post?
Or mine?