Yes, I worry that posting something will attract attacks and will not be taken seriously (37.5%)
No, I take it all on the chin and post if I want to regardless (17.97%)
I tend to lurk on the forum most of the time and post only when I really want to (44.53%)
I think that's where you're getting confused ... the burden of proof bit. Most people I know who are researching - and I mean properly researching, not going ghost hunting - couldnt give a toss what you think they'd have to prove to you.
If people have no belief in the paranormal, I still dont understand why they feel the need to harass people in the paranormal forum. If they are healthily skeptical about the paranormal, then chances are they wont be expecting someone to walk up to them and 'prove' something paranormal, as they'll be interested enough to go look for the info themselves.
As I already asked ... what is proof anyway?
Again, as Ive already outlined, the only way you'll get your proof is to go out and find it.
The rest of us basically cant give a toss about the 'burden of proof' as we dont really care if anyone believes us or not.
Science would be in pretty **** shape if scientists sat there demanding people prove things to them, rather than go and do the research themselves.
I'd still like you to explain to me exactly what kind of 'proof' you're expecting.
To answer your first point, it's "beyond reasonable doubt".
Scientists do ask for proof. That's what science is about. It's also about disproving.
How many photographs have we all seen of ghosts? 100's, 1000's ?
99.9% have been proved to be fake.
Are you serious? Didnt you go to school?
Suggest you read this:
I'm quite serious, and yes I did, thanks for asking.
In case you forgot to actually read the thread, I am asking what way do you want your proof served. What would you view as proof?
If I robbed a bank and it was caught on camera, then thats proof I done it. If you see a youtube video of a ghost, none of us are really that convinced as it isnt proof of anything. See the difference?
So I ask again, what would be constituted as 'proof' in the regards of the paranormal?
I say, first hand experience as anything else could be tampered with.
You wont get that same experience by demanding strangers on the internet convince you of the existence of ghosts, so therefore I still say that if you're that intrigued by it all, then by all means, get your hands dirty and go look.
By coming here people are "looking"...
You seem terribly confused. Advocates of the paranormal are making claims about phenomena in the natural world, we have a system of investigating and measuring this - its called science.
I think CiaranC, going by this thread, people can see who is confused.
Visiting a web forum and acting the know-it-all isn't 'looking', and it's certainly no research.
I have to add, your personal views (that I didnt go to school, or that Im very confused) are pretty telling in regards the weakness of your argument. You dont seem to have much idea about paranormal research. I wouldn't try to start a debate on it I were you since you seem to pretty well fit the template of the kind of high horsed poster this thread is about.
I advise you brush up on scientific research as well. They dont get their info from trawling websites.
Thanks for backing up the points Ive been making. Science isnt about asking for proof. For gods sake. Who would they ask? Other scientists? And then they get the info (according to you) by asking someone else?
No they dont. They go and find out the info they need by research and experimentation. Any sane scientist would look at the 'sceptics' on this forum and keep them at arms length. Too many armchair scientists who havent a notion.
Secondly - yes ... I already said photos dont work as evidence. What point are you trying to make by repeating my points?
Answer my question - what would you regard as plausible proof as far as the paranormal is concerned?
I never said that.
If someone alleges the existence of something, they must have some evidence to back it up, if not actual proof.
You said scientists ask questions - I said they research. Asking questions and researching are two completely different things.
How can you find evidence of proof if you dont look for it? Why expect someone to prove something to you? Why not go get it yourself if its that interesting to you? and Finally, what would you class as acceptable proof in regards the paranormal? I want someone to answer that for me. You're the third person Ive asked on this thread.
Speaking as a scientist, I would say that the manifestation of paranormal phenomena, which can be reproduced under specific conditions, and can be verified by an unbiased third party, would constitute definitive proof. I don't think I've left anything majorly important out.
HOWEVER, my opinion is that science has become far too ingrained in seeking that level of proof, since there is nothing to say that there are undiscovered forces in the universe, or undeveloped methods of detection and analysis. We can hardly stick some ectoplasm on a HPLC now, can we? Dark matter, for example, is a more or less unverified theory of a more or less unidentifiable substance, not to mention morphic fields and other fringe ideas, like the popular idea of 'psi' or 'mana' or whatever being the fifth fundamental force of physics. But there is no absolute evidence against them, and no known methods by which to measure them at the moment.
As such, I personally don't think that we CAN verify most paranormal phenomena by current methods and instruments, at least not to a satisfactory level that will convince everyone, regardless of what they believe. But i do hold to the idea that eventually we will, and although it may not (and probably won't) come within our lifetimes, there's always hope, eh? And I think that hope and belief are the most powerful tools we have right now, and we shouldn't jump the gun with proof.
TL;DR: Stop shouting 'Pics or GTFO', there's really no point.
I totally agree.
'Paranormal research' is at such a primitive stage, theres no way anyone can say or prove any of it - bar having the experience personally. At the same time, I dont understand how people can ever expect to find any kind of definitive proof - one way or the other - without trying to research it first. Thats how science works.
Though personally, I dont agree with the idea of pretending paranormal research is scientific. It isn't. Certainly not at this stage of its development. It may be in a few decades time - but again, if people put more focus on demanding proof of one kind, rather than researching it, they'll never get the question answered.
So you're proposing that the onus is on us to research the evidence presented to us rather than than those that present it to do the research themselves.
If so, then you're contradicting yourself. You say "theres no way anyone can say or prove any of it - bar having the experience personally"
What I'm saying is very. very simple.
If you have any questions about the paranormal, presently (imo), the only way to get them answered is to go look. There is no proof, and probably wont be for years to come.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, at the same time, so as a skeptic, I would hedge bets that in some time in the future some of things we currently regard as paranormal will be explained in one way or another.
Only if people look though. Not if they demand someone supplies them with an answer.