There is precisely the same amount of evidence for the existence of demons as there is for the existence of ghosts.
I don’t have a problem with someone who thinks they (or some future scientist) might someday be able to achieve some technological equivalent of a ghost, i.e. copying all the data in a human brain and creating a computerized (though perhaps limited) simulation of that person’s consciousness that continues beyond the physical death of that person, even if the person making the suggestion has only the vaguest idea of how this might work.
Trouble is, typical belief in ghosts is not some forward-thinking technological or scientific goal. It’s quite determinedly indifferent to explain the process, or to even start to explain the process. Frankly, I find invoking the Wright brothers in this context does them quite a disservice.
No-one’s saying there’s no difference between the two phenomena but I still think his point worked.
Let’s say a guy gives a rock to you that he claims fell from the sky. You examine it using all the best tests at the time. It seems like a fairly ordinary lump of kamacite that could be found anywhere.
Later on, another guy hands you a clock. He claims he saw a ghost knock it off a table. You examine the clock using the best tests of the time and find nothing of note.
Now at this time, both the rocks from space and ghost hypotheses are on an equal footing: absolutely nowhere. You can’t say rocks from space was always on a higher footing because prior to data that could not be trivially explained it was not.
FWIW, starting with the conclusion then running experiments to validate it isn’t science. It is pseudoskepticism.
There is still a very big difference between the two. Sure, if someone randomly walked up to me and handed me a rock and made outlandish claims about it, it would be on the same par as ghosts. But rocks from the sky were based on the fantastic fire displays in the sky that were not normal. Fantastic displays that all were able to see.
The difference you are not allowing is that on almost any given night almost anyone can watch the night sky and see falling “stars”, please point me to a place where I can consistently see “ghosts”.
He says he saw a ghost knock it off the table, you say. OK, what is a “ghost,” and how do you test for it? Also, he isn’t making any extraordinary claim about the clock itself.
From what I’ve read so far, the pro-ghosters are asking: If there’s a situation where a door opens and closes on its own, how much proof do the skeptics need to be convinced it’s a paranormal event?
The anti-ghosters are saying: There’s never been a situation where a door opened and closed on its own that couldn’t be explained. Therefore we can’t answer that question.
In return, the pro-ghosters are wanting the anti-ghosters to answer a hypothetical question. The anti-ghosters reply that if we answer, you’ll try to make it look like we think there’s a possibility the paranormal exists, and we’re not falling into that trap.
Peter Morris: Czarcasm wasn’t trying to deceive anybody by making up quotes. What he was doing was coming up with what he thought were typical excuses pro-ghosters use when the proving process doesn’t go their way. Pretend he said that before the quotes, and next time don’t take quote marks as gospel.
It’s think it’s more accurate to say that what were saying is that there can never be a way to prove it wasn’t a ghost, only ways to fail to prove it was.
You mean the streaks of light that look a bit like stars in motion? It still requires a leap of insight to say that they are the same thing as the rocks that some claim drop to the ground.
In any case the essential point is that, sure, for a time there was insufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that rocks really do fall from the sky.
Well, is the person with the meteorite making an extraordinary claim about the rock? For all we know, it is an ordinary piece of kamacite, that got sucked into the air somehow and then fell back down.
(If it needed to be said again: I’m just playing Devil’s advocate here. I think Wesley Clark’s comments a few posts ago summed up the situation very well.)
I’d like to address a specific point for a moment. While it is true that there have been people searching for evidence of ghosts for a long time, it is only extremely recently that we’ve developed widely available, cost effective, easily operated technology that has allowed us to actually explain away and actually correct problems causing “hauntings”. Before that, there was only extremely spurious and completely ridiculous techniques employed such as psychics, mediums, and seances.
We discovered that high EMF messes with people and technology has improved to the point that now we can buy a low cost meter that reliably measures such problems. Infrasound can be detected with a good microphone and commercially available software analysis. EVP,* can likewise be recorded and analyzed for its source. Night vision cameras, infrared modes, and thermal equipment are all extremely recent additions to the battery of easily available scientific instruments. A few more are meters that measure air flow, or local pressure differentials. Motion activated cameras are also just beginning to be both extremely reliable and low cost. You can even get an app that measures and records minor seismic activity if calibrated and left to run.
I think that given the increasing power of technology and plummeting costs and ease of operation it is likely that we will actually see a lot more minor scientific discoveries taking place in this field. it isn’t unlikely that we will discover further causes for supposed paranormal activity and be able to add to the ability to correct and stop it. Sure, you’ll never be able to completely eliminate woo, but it’s always worth pursuing that goal, particularly if in that pursuit you can help out people who are turning to woo because they are not as scientifically inclined as they should be.
*(which is still out for debate actually; we know that recordings DO occur at that level, we don’t really know why or have a reliable ability to reproduce them. Not everything is pattern recognition, there are a lot of documented noises with pitch shits, melodies etc…This field is being pursued hard by some audio engineers though, so I expect it to go away within the next ten years. )
Yes, they are saying it has a different origin than other rocks. In your clock analogy the comparison would be a claim that a clock fell from the sky, not that an ordinary clock was moved by extraordinary means. There is nothing about the clock itself that would be testable in that regard. The clock is not the phenomenon. With meteorites, the rocks themselves were the phenomenon.
As I said, I have my doubts as to their existence =)
I mean, I have had contact with the Warrens, they could be very sweet people [a very good friend of mine was a student and friend of theirs] but holy shit on a stick, they would look at anything mildly paranormal and claim DEMONS … they were ‘demonologists’ and like the joke goes when your only tool is a hammer everything looks like nails…
I just think there is a possibility that there is something causing this stuff, and that not all of it can be explained away. Whether or not it is demonic, angelic, spiritual or purely scientifically debunkable, no clue. There does appear to be something in humans that makes us different from animals, a soul if you want to call it that. Whether it can linger after death, I honestly do not know.
Check your PM’s for a response.
Another fault with meteorites vs. ghosts:
Colored streaks in the sky have been seen by millions. They’re out in the open, and don’t occur in a hidden environment that only a few people can see. There may have been skepticism that the streaks were actually rocks, but there was no doubt that they existed.
Can’t say the same for ghosts. If millions of people believed ghosts existed as naturally as meteor swarms, there would be differing opinions on how ghosts are made. Ghosts have not been accepted as a natural, everyday event. Therefore the analogy does not work.
I see no reason to keep this personal. You said the same thing in the public thread.
I don’t see it that way. I thought he made some believable imitations. You either agree he’s reasonable and don’t want to acknowledge it, or you’ve totally missed his point.
Assume he’s *not *trying to stir up shit. Is it possible he thinks pro-ghosters are waffling when the proof doesn’t go their way? He’s showing a chink in their armor. Don’t try to cover up the chink by accusing him of trash talk.
You seem to be intentionally obtuse. You have it backward. No one would claim that rocks fall from the sky without the falling star phenomenon.
They are saying “I came upon this rock in an unusual way”. They are making no claim as to its origins.
The rocks are the thing that you are observing, sure. That’s not quite the same thing as saying the rocks are the phenomenon; they could be ordinary rocks, no different from any other terrestrial rocks.
Just as if I handed you a box of iron fillings, and claim that I saw them line up in a particular way last night, does not make the iron filings the phenomenon of magnetic fields.
But again, the wider point: There was a time at which not enough data on meteorites had been collated for the case to be compelling.
A point at which a person thinking perfectly rationally and scientifically, would have said: “There is no reason to suppose ghosts exist, just anecdotal reports” and in the same breath “There is no reason to suppose rocks fall from the sky, just anecdotal reports”.
The difference between the two phenomenon is that the second ultimately produced a weight of evidence that could not be ignored, but the former remained anecdotes.
Could the existence of ghosts be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before there is a clear theory of what ghosts are? Sure. It’s just that right now there is no such data (nor any reason to suppose that such data exists).
Causing what stuff?
No, they’re saying it fell from the sky, which is a claim abut its origins. They are saying there is something unusual about the rock itself.
No I think you’re confusing yourself here. Not all meteorites are found; some are actually witnessed falling from the sky.
No-one might claim that rocks fall from outer space without the falling star phenomenon.