To which you will reply: “You faked it.”
Not if they actually have proof. Proof, by definition, can’t be faked.
Good og allmighty give me patience. THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THIS WHOLE BLOODY THREAD.
HOW, can we be certain our proof is incontrovertible as possible? What controls and procedures can we use to eliminate immediate retaliation of fraud and hoax?
Was I not clear enough in the OP?
The results so far have been 100% negative. When do we get to put away the equipment and say, “I’m going to spend my time doing something worthwhile instead of wasting it investigating your silly claims. When you come up with solid evidence, get back to me.” The onus is on the woosters, damn it.
That depends entirely on what the specific hypothesis is. We can’t design a test without a defined hypotheis.
You cannot. If the test is designed by non-woosters, claims of fraud and hoax will automatically arise. Try to realize that there is no test you can devise that can show anything more than that you could not find the ghost.
That. Is. Just. What. I. Bloody. Said. :smack:
Who is the we? I’m not calling your ass over to do my dirty work, I’m asking you what would you need to give a claim more than curt dismissal?
What would be thorough? What would be reasonably ironclad? What would be durable to immediate dismissal as hoaxing?
For example, there was a case a few years ago that was resolved when it was determined that the home stood over a deep fault in the earth’s crust. When the physically imperceptible tremors occurred it threw bloody hell with the local magnetic field. When they went back and looked at the “paranormal” claims and dates, they nearly all coincided directly with seismic activity. They made some structural adjustments to the home and the woo disappeared.
So suppose someone else is having a similar problem? What documentation would be good to bring to serious scientists, to say; “Something weird is going on in my home and I’d like someone to look into it.”
You can’t develop a hypothesis if you don’t know what the question is in the first place. All a person may know is that weird stuff happens in their home and they don’t know why.
So let’s do this in baby steps.
Claim: The doors open and close on their own.
Investigation occurs, and AcidCo paranormal catches just such an event on video.
using basic instruments, we confirm that there is not a pressure differential going on, and our contractor likewise confirms that he cannot find a mechanical reason for that to happen.
Now what? I’d like to take it the University of Acid and have someone review it and give me some ideas, since i’m stumped. They reply: you faked it. How can i provide a reasonable level of legitmacy to the evidence?
It doesn’t work that way. There isn’t any test for “weird stuff.” You ned a specific claim. That;s how science works. You at least need a specific object or phenomenon to examine.
You’re loading your hypothetical here, and no one at a university would just say, “you faked it,” (although they’d probably think it). The video would mean nothing in and of itself, so they would have to go observe things for themselves, and come up with a variety of hypthetical acuses, but even if they could find no natural cause (which they totally would. It’s impossible for doors to open and close by themselves without a physical cause), it would just mean they couldn’t find the cause. It would not be evidence of ghosts, because that, in itself, is an untestable hypothesis unless and until you can define a ghost in scientific terms and make falsifiable predictions about them.
And I’m asking you how many hundreds of failures in a row it would take before you give any more claims the curt dismissal they so richly deserve? Come up with a case where the obvious(wind, settling, bad lighting, drafts, overactive imagination, outright lying and many more reasons that have their basis in reality) has been eliminated by someone who isn’t emotionally invested in woo, then start investigating possibilities that are less rooted in reality.
Money. Bring money.
If you or some group interested in spookery have a bunch of dough to invest in a study and respectable scientists want to get involved, that’s fine by me. They can be as rigorous and science-y as they see fit, and present what evidence they dig up. Others can poke holes in it, or attempt to replicate it if something interesting turns up.
That’s how science works.
Hear the voices in my head,
I swear to God it sounds like they’re snoring
-Harvey Danger
cite?
Or is it *another *facetious prediction of what they might say? (i.e. a made up strawman.)
I"m only going to say this one more time. I’M NOT TRYING TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS.
I’m just trying to to figure out a threshold of credibility for evidence. Why is that so difficult for you to address? Do you just have no ideas?
That is what I’m asking here. What would be a reasonable level of credibility for my evidence. If I want to prove that I’ve done diligence, how do I show it without someone just dismissing it as a hoax?
The implication is bigger. If you can never reach a level of credibility why should we believe in any theoretical science at all?
Gotta start somewhere
If Czarcasm were to quote actual excuses, and provide cites, I’d be fine with that.
What he actually does is to make up stuff. Everyone can tell he’s making it up. It’s obvious that he’s making it up. And by making it up, he’s damaging the skeptical position, and making paranormal claimants seem honest and sensible, compared to him.
That’s why I object.
- Don’t be part of a group that gets fame and/or monetary gain from “finding ghosts.”
- Clearly define the claim being made.
- Have documented evidence that you have made a good-faith effort to eliminate the physically possible.
- Have another scientific group check your findings. They might think of something that you missed.
- No rational explanation yet? “Ghost-proof” that sucker and see what you get!
What ARE you trying to prove then?
Evidence for WHAT? You have to stipulate what you’re trying to test for.
nm.