Proving to people in Paranormal forum that they can be tricked

TaxiManMartin

I posted this in After Hours (actually it looks like i posted it by accident in Paranormal ... duh ) so i could get some people together for an experiment.

But mysteriously it was closed without warning.

I guess anyone interested can still PM me but i dont see why it would be closed. I guess they are not interested in an experiment like this.


After reading and answering some threads in the paranormal forum it looks like some people just want to believe in the supernatural. They cant help it. They dont really have any proof, but are willing to say any experience they cant explain is supernatural. They arent even open to the idea that they could be mistaken at all.

I suggested in one thread that some of us go and set up the next "Ghost hunt" to give them some false positives. Basically what i am proposing is to get there before them and set up some experiences for them.

Let them find their "proof" and let them come back here and talk about it for a few days. Then we post what they actually experienced and how we set it up. And see if they believe that they are capable of being tricked into seeing ghosts after that.

I have had a few people contact me about it already. And have someone on the inside who can give us advance warning of a "hunt". They will also help lead the "hunters" into our little experiment. Its someone who doesnt really believe, but they go on the "hunts" for the craic.

We have some very good ideas. Ive written to James Randi too but he hasnt answered yet

I think this would be an interesting experiment to see just how objective people who claim to experience the supernatural really are.

Anyone else who wants in let me know via PM or otherwise.


Is anyone in Skeptics interested? I think it would be a really worthwhile experiment to do. And it might show some people that their need to believe is effecting their judgment in a bad way.

It doesnt really matter if they know we plan to do this experiment. Just the very nature of their need to believe in the supernatural will override any suspicion they have that they are being experimented upon. They wont actually know when we have set this up anyway, until after they reveal their results, and then we reveal our results.

I might bring this up at an Irish skeptics meeting too. Havent been to one in ages.

MrMojoRisin

TaxiManMartin wrote: »

After reading and answering some threads in the paranormal forum it looks like some people just want to believe in the supernatural. They cant help it. They dont really have any proof, but are willing to say any experience they cant explain is supernatural. They arent even open to the idea that they could be mistaken at all.

Do u own the copyright to personal beliefs?

Let them find their "proof" and let them come back here and talk about it for a few days. Then we post what they actually experienced and how we set it up. And see if they believe that they are capable of being tricked into seeing ghosts after that.

I have had a few people contact me about it already. And have someone on the inside who can give us advance warning of a "hunt". They will also help lead the "hunters" into our little experiment. Its someone who doesnt really believe, but they go on the "hunts" for the craic.

Is anyone in Skeptics interested? I think it would be a really worthwhile experiment to do. And it might show some people that their need to believe is effecting their judgment in a bad way.

It doesnt really matter if they know we plan to do this experiment. Just the very nature of their need to believe in the supernatural will override any suspicion they have that they are being experimented upon. They wont actually know when we have set this up anyway, until after they reveal their results, and then we reveal our results.

All i can say is that u seem like a very mean spirited,callous, manipulative,distrustful person based on what youre trying to do here and that youll have trouble finding naive volunteers wanting to be used by you

TaxiManMartin

Ive got a couple of people to help already.
Need a couple more just for the ideas.
Its just an experiment. Nothing more.
Its about the difference between reality and beliefs.

So you guys dont like psychics because you believe that they trick people . So being "true skeptics" you are going to try trick people ?

WOW

Well to be honest the most shocking thing about this is the fact that your willing to get off your backsides. I suppose i have to commend you for that .

Also post your findings i bet you will have no proof that the place is "not haunted" either way

Actually i might call myself Randy James and pay somebody who can prove to me that a place is "not haunted" :P

DANNY22XX

Gonna be hard to get any proof that you require due to the fact you told everyone what you are gonna do,,,lol if you hadnt said anything im sure you would have got a better response.

Keep us posted on your progress;)

karynp

o/p, grow up please!
everyone to their own an all that.
am sure theres some game out there in the shops you can amuse yourself with...
disrespecting people is not on mate,your just looking to take the piss outv them and honestly its very childish.
and whoever you have on the "inside" outa be ashamed of themselves.

really the experiment is to show you can trick people

Groundbreaking :rolleyes:

also 20 years too late , you give skeptics a bad name

iamhunted

Im only making an observation, this kinda proves the point that a lot of people have the notion that 'paranormalists' will believe anything fed to them, without using any kind of logical thought.

What has been proposed is the kind of thing paranormal research groups spend their time doing anyway - investigating 'hauntings' presented to them and trying to figure out what the actual causes are.

If 'skeptics' (though really, we all are in this field, the 'skeptics' sometimes don't understand what the word means in the real world) spent a bit of time looking into how paranormal research is done, and what those interested in the subject *actually* think - rather than propose the obvious and cling to over exaggerated stereotypes - then they might have a better footing to fool the 'hunters'.

stevenmu

I posted this in the other thread (which was originally posted in after hours but was moved over)

I'd also add that several of the members here who organise investigations have built up a good reputation with the owners which is vital in allowing these investigations to proceed.

If people do the above and try to disrupt investigations, they could damage this reputation, and seriously jepordise the ability of forum members to organise investigations.

Please do not spoil everybody's fun just to prove some petty point so you can bask in your own smugness.

I would also add to that and say that every investigation which has been organised through the forum has been open to skeptics as well. There's no reason why a skeptic can't simply and openly go along to an investigation and take a full part in it and come to their own conclusions.

I would like to think that any true skeptic bases their views on science. True science involves objective observation, measurement, deduction, rationalisation, experimentation and criticism. Oh, and let's not forget honesty. I very much doubt that the cause of true science has ever been significantly advanced by one scientist sneaking into another's lab and contaminating their equipment.

Overblood

This is very like James Randi's Proect Alpha. For anyone who knows what this project achieved, you would be foolish not to agree with me in saying that Randi and his helpers were absolute geniuses. The experiment showed that even scientists, the masters of measuring, can be duped into believing paranormal hokey-pokey.

If Taximanmartin's experiment is to go ahead, himself and whoever joins him will be in a way playing the role of Project Alpha's Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards (i'll be James Randi ok? ) and the PIG crew would be the scientists.

If Taximanmartin's experiment is successful, ie set up events which are reported by the PIG crew as supernatural phenomena, then it would only show us what we already know: the majority of those who believe/want to believe in the paranormal are easily convinced. (It may even be good enough to convince any tag-along sceptics...)

Anyway I still think Taximanmartin should have kept quiet about it. I can think of other ways to rally support. The fact that he's shouting from the hilltops leads me to believe that he's only trying to frighten ye! Somebody on the inside? Yeah sure... it's possible though.


For an indepth article on Project Alpha (written by himself), check this out: http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/project_alpha.htm

Overblood

stevenmu wrote: »

I would also add to that and say that every investigation which has been organised through the forum has been open to skeptics as well. There's no reason why a skeptic can't simply and openly go along to an investigation and take a full part in it and come to their own conclusions.

That's not what he wants to do. He doesn't want to investigate any paranormal stuff. I'm guessing he wants to do his own Project Alpha. See the above post about Project Alpha.

stevenmu wrote: »

I would like to think that any true skeptic bases their views on science. True science involves objective observation, measurement, deduction, rationalisation, experimentation and criticism.

What Taximanmartin is proposing is actually an experiment, which would involve observation, measurement, deduction, rationalisation, experimentation and criticism... and more.

Also, the honesty part would come in to play once the hoax is revealed to all.

stevenmu wrote: »

I very much doubt that the cause of true science has ever been significantly advanced by one scientist sneaking into another's lab and contaminating their equipment.

I wouldn't call a group of boardsies wandering around a field "true science". Anyways, here's an article about how ethical Project Alpha was.

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/15/science/magician-s-effort-to-debunk-scientists-raises-ethical-issues.html?sec=health&&scp=1&sq=marcello+truzzi+alpha+project&st=nyt

Overblood

I'll shut up about Project Alpha now.

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

I wouldn't call a group of boardsies wandering around a field "true science".

I wouldnt call somebody who sits at home and questions the paranormal a skeptic.

Overblood

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't call somebody who sits at home and questions the paranormal a skeptic.

Why not? I would.

skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

sceptic or US skeptic [skep-tik] Noun
1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sceptic

A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety.
http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism

So did anyone read up on Project Alpha? Whatcha think?

I know what a skeptic is im just saying that you are not one .

Overblood

Deleted User wrote: »

I know what a skeptic is im just saying that you are not one .

Why not?

getz

isent it strange that people who dont believe in the paranormal, are still quite happy to go to church and pray?

Overblood

I don't pray or go to church, I don't believe in god.

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Why not?

Well being skeptical is as you said is 1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs .

Meaning you neither believe or disbelieve. Meaning that you are open to any possability .

Clearly this is not you .

Overblood

Are you getting pedantic on my ass? What would I have to do to be a sceptic in your eyes? Doubt gravity?

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Are you getting pedantic on my ass? What would I have to do to be a sceptic in your eyes? Doubt gravity?

im not saying that you are not a skeptic. But i am yet to see any proof that you are

mister gullible

getz wrote: »

isent it strange that people who dont believe in the paranormal, are still quite happy to go to church and pray?

People who go to church and pray obviously do believe in the paranormal!!!

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

Are you getting pedantic on my ass? What would I have to do to be a sceptic in your eyes? Doubt gravity?

A skeptic surely is someone who though they have have deep, deep doubts about something, are still open to the idea they could be proven wrong. A cynic on the other hand clearly believes he or she cant be wrong about their assumption. You seem pretty sure the paranormal is all complete rubbish and you dont seem to be open to the fact it *mightn't* be rubbish, which in my mind puts you as more of a cynic than a skeptic (well this is the impression I get and only my opinion so my apologies if Im wrong).

The majority of those interested in the paranormal are skeptics and quite a few go looking for the answers to these questions rather than just slate the whole idea from an armchair over the internet. This is a problem I have with the title of this forum as many who post as skeptics, clearly arent.

those who completely believe everything (which there arent many) are clearly as unmovable as their opposites (ie the more cynical) but aren't representative of those who do have an interest.

Overblood

iamhunted wrote: »

A skeptic surely is someone who though they have have deep, deep doubts about something, are still open to the idea they could be proven wrong.

Yes I am open to the idea that I can be proven wrong. But in the history of science there has never been a shred of evidence in favour of paranormal phenomena that is actually worth a sh!t.

I'm sure they thought fire was paranormal back in the stone age, possibly even a spirit of some sort. That is what is happening today. People attach amazing stories to UFOs. What does the U stand for again?....

Eventually one must come to a conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that all paranormal and psi phenomena must be non-paranormal. BUT, If some great evidence is presented here tomorrow, then of course I'll accept it. I'd have to be stupid not to give that scenario a modicum of possibility.

iamhunted wrote: »

You seem pretty sure the paranormal is all complete rubbish and you dont seem to be open to the fact it *mightn't* be rubbish, which in my mind puts you as more of a cynic than a skeptic

I wouldn't use the word "complete rubbish". There is the slightest slightest slightest chance that all of this is true. Leprechauns, werewolves, god, ghosts, banshee etc etc. I'm not denying that possibility. But the chances are so slim and the evidence so paltry that you might as well dismiss it as nothing but nice stories and fairytales.

iamhunted wrote: »

The majority of those interested in the paranormal are skeptics and quite a few go looking for the answers to these questions rather than just slate the whole idea from an armchair over the internet.

The PIG are not true sceptics, at least one of them has a "soft spot" for the paranormal. Yes, they go looking for answers but the investigation is biased since they would like this stuff to be true. Fact.

Plus, I'm not sitting on an armchair. Also, I can "slate" the paranormal all I want. I have been on this planet 23 years and I've yet to see anything paranormal. I've read countless anecdotes and seen countless crappy photos. Is that evidence or proof? Not at all. Not even close.

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster? If you don't, please explain why you don't.

Overblood

By the way, I just checked out the www.irishparanormal.org website.

According to you, iamhunted, the only sceptics are those who go and "investigate" the paranormal themselves ie. walk around spooky houses. So the Irish Paranormal Group, supposedly a national big time operation due to the title, are sceptics. According to you.

Here's a bit from their "How to tell if you're Haunted" section:

First off don't be scared, I know that sounds funny. You have a human spirit that is living there with you or just passing through, they are harmless, a bit unnerving and scary at times, but that is not what they are trying to be.

Hold on a sec.... So they are assuming that spirits exist, before the feckin' investigation? Great. How the hell do you call that being sceptical?

Yelling may upset or anger the spirit and then they will not stop what you have asked them to. Speak to them just like you are talking to a friend and explain what your problem is and ask if they could stop.

Are you sure these people who get up off their armchair and investigate the paranormal are really skeptics? In my opinion, they are definitely not. Let's read on...

We can assist you in getting unbiased evidence and evaluating your situation. We can also educate you on living with ghosts.

Fail to IrishParanormal. And fail to iamhunted too.

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

Yes I am open to the idea that I can be proven wrong. ........... I have come to the conclusion that all paranormal and psi phenomena must be non-paranormal. BUT, If some great evidence is presented here tomorrow, then of course I'll accept it. I'd have to be stupid not to give that scenario a modicum of possibility........ But the chances are so slim and the evidence so paltry that you might as well dismiss it as nothing but nice stories and fairytales........I have been on this planet 23 years and I've yet to see anything paranormal. I've read countless anecdotes and seen countless crappy photos. Is that evidence or proof? Not at all. Not even close.

Read through that again and see if you can see how many times youve contradicted yourself. The 'BUT if ...' especially as I think you;ve nailed your cynic hat to the wall there as a cynic will ONLY believe something when its shown to them and not consider their opinion was incorrect before hand.

Considering Ive been on the planet 40 years and I have witnessed some things that could quite easily be classed as paranormal I cant agree that because youve been around 23 years and havent, that that means the paranormal is "nothing but nice stories and fairytales".

The main difference is Ive been out looking for these things, you obviously havent.

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

And fail to iamhunted too.

Oh aye - you've really told us off and proved how silly we are. :rolleyes:

Ive loving the great enlightenment you've given me.

iamhunted

Overblood wrote: »

By the way, I just checked out the www.irishparanormal.org website.

According to you, iamhunted, the only sceptics are those who go and "investigate" the paranormal themselves ie. walk around spooky houses. So the Irish Paranormal Group, supposedly a national big time operation due to the title, are sceptics. According to you.

Here's a bit from their "How to tell if you're Haunted" section:



Hold on a sec.... So they are assuming that spirits exist, before the feckin' investigation? Great. How the hell do you call that being sceptical?



Are you sure these people who get up off their armchair and investigate the paranormal are really skeptics? In my opinion, they are definitely not. Let's read on...



Fail to IrishParanormal. And fail to iamhunted too.

the more i read this, the more funnier it is. Just what exactly is your point here? That all paranormal research groups all have to have exactly the same opinions? ah, thats a classic. Please, dont try and slag off a bunch of stuff you have no idea of, as you really dont seem to get the whole concept of 'research'.

Overblood

iamhunted wrote: »

Read through that again and see if you can see how many times youve contradicted yourself. The 'BUT if ...' especially as

I didn't contradict myself at all. I said I don't believe in spooky fairies, but at the same time I acknowledge the possibility of being wrong.

iamhunted wrote: »

I think you;ve nailed your cynic hat to the wall there as a cynic will ONLY believe something when its shown to them and not consider their opinion was incorrect before hand.

I can't make any sense out of that sentence. So as a true skeptic I'm supposed to believe in something before I see evidence?

iamhunted wrote: »

the more i read this, the more funnier it is. Just what exactly is your point here? That all paranormal research groups all have to have exactly the same opinions? ah, thats a classic. Please, dont try and slag off a bunch of stuff you have no idea of, as you really dont seem to get the whole concept of 'research'.

Haha! What those guys do may be "research", but it is not scientific, and they are not sceptics. Their research is totally biased since they already accept the existence of ghosts, poultergheists and spooky sprits as fact.

By the way I agree with genhiz's post here: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60399195&postcount=34

Riamfada

Overblood, I think you dont really know what paranormal investigators do. Have you been on a paranormal investigation? You say you have seen nothing paranormal but have you gone looking for it.

For the record I didnt believe in ghosts or God before my first investigation. Now I believe in both. Perhaps you should give it a shot.

Back on topic however if the OP really wishes to trick people by faking an event it really proves nothing except the fact that people can be tricked. It all seems like alot of hot air on the OP's part and a bit sad. Kind of like going to Arnotts in December and telling all the kinds that Santa isnt real because they cant prove his existence scientifically and then pulling his beard off while smugly waiting for the children to thank him for enlightening their lives. Grow up OP and get a hobby. Perhaps something that dosnt involve you ruining other peoples fun? I recommend stamps

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

The PIG are not true sceptics, at least one of them has a "soft spot" for the paranormal. Yes, they go looking for answers but the investigation is biased since they would like this stuff to be true. Fact.

Haha! What those guys do may be "research", but it is not scientific, and they are not sceptics. Their research is totally biased since they already accept the existence of ghosts, poultergheists and spooky sprits as fact.

Being a true skeptic I suppose you have evidence to back up these facts ?

Riamfada

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying that the PIGS already accept the presence of Ghosts. FACT

Zombrex

Grimes wrote: »

For the record I didnt believe in ghosts or God before my first investigation. Now I believe in both. Perhaps you should give it a shot.

And the paranormal investigations demonstrated that something was a "ghost" (the disconnected spirit of a dead person) how exactly?

Zombrex

Grimes wrote: »

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying that the PIGS already accept the presence of Ghosts. FACT

From the website

"Many people are not bothered at all by spirits in their homes because they can accept them for what they are and they realize that there is nothing to fear."

Accept them for what they are? What exactly are they?

First off don't be scared, I know that sounds funny. You have a human spirit that is living there with you or just passing through, they are harmless, a bit unnerving and scary at times, but that is not what they are trying to be

I would be very interesting in learning ow the IPIC have determined that people having "a human spirit that is living there with you"

That must have taken some really hard serious sceptical scientific research on their part :rolleyes:

Spirits often respond very well to this if you are calm, firm and respectful.

A human spirit has the free will to decide when and where it will go.

And so on and so on

If there is the definition of a "sceptic" you guys are using no wonder you don't think Overblood is a sceptic.

The IPIC and "sceptics" like them go out to find "ghosts" and "spirits". That is what they are interested in, the only question for them is "Was that a spirt". They have already accepted that all the human explanations for these unexplained phenomena are real and accurate and now they just going through the motions of determining if you have a ghost, not if a ghost is actually a real thing that accurately explains a natural phenomena.

"STEP 5: Once more we collect all the data and try to determine if "you" indeed have something that points to paranormal activity"

That is so far removed from real science, real openmindedness and real scepticism it is riduculous. It is the very definition of close mindedness

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

A skeptic surely is someone who though they have have deep, deep doubts about something, are still open to the idea they could be proven wrong.

Yes iamhunted but the bit you guys continued miss is that they actually have to be demonstrated wrong

No one has ever EVER demonstrated that an unexplained phenomena such as a light or sound has a supernatural origin, let alone demonstrated that it is being caused by something like a ghost or a spirit or any of the other invented paranormal explanations.

The very idea of a "ghost" is so far removed from what any evidence has ever been gather the mention of the term is ridiculous in any serious context. A "ghost" is an imagined concept used to explain unexplained phenomena such as sounds or lights. No one who takes any of this seriously, or who claims to, should even be entertaining the ideas of ghosts because there it is so far on from where the evidence actually is at the moment.

Overblood

Grimes wrote: »

For the record I didnt believe in ghosts or God before my first investigation. Now I believe in both. Perhaps you should give it a shot.

What caused you to believe? Care to share?:)

Grimes wrote: »

Back on topic however if the OP really wishes to trick people by faking an event it really proves nothing except the fact that people can be tricked.

Yes people can be tricked. They can be tricked by saboteurs like Taximanmartin. More importantly though, people can be tricked by their own senses, without the need of a saboteur. Grimes, is it possible that you were fooled into believing in ghosts and god by your own senses interpreting data incorrectly, or dare I say a SABOTEUR?

Overblood wrote: »

The PIG are not true sceptics, at least one of them has a "soft spot" for the paranormal. Yes, they go looking for answers but the investigation is biased since they would like this stuff to be true. Fact.

Haha! What those guys do may be "research", but it is not scientific, and they are not sceptics. Their research is totally biased since they already accept the existence of ghosts, poultergheists and spooky sprits as fact.

Deleted User wrote: »

Being a true skeptic I suppose you have evidence to back up these facts ?

Fact#1: Yes I do have evidence to back up these facts. Which boards users here are actually on the PIG team?

Fact#2: Regarding the IrishParanormal group, come on, their site is a joke. They obviously believe in ghosts and spooky spirits. Check out the paragraphs I quoted from the site. There is no way they can conduct a truly un-biased investigation if they actually believe in ghosts. They discuss spirits on their website as if it was a totally normal occurrence, as if they were a pest control company talking about wasps. It's ridiculous.

I think you are jumping to conclusions by saying that the PIGS already accept the presence of Ghosts. FACT

At least one of them does. Give me a list of all the PIG members here on boards.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes iamhunted but the bit you guys continued miss is that they actually have to be demonstrated wrong

No one has ever EVER demonstrated that an unexplained phenomena such as a light or sound has a supernatural origin, let alone demonstrated that it is being caused by something like a ghost or a spirit or any of the other invented paranormal explanations.

The very idea of a "ghost" is so far removed from what any evidence has ever been gather the mention of the term is ridiculous in any serious context. A "ghost" is an imagined concept used to explain unexplained phenomena such as sounds or lights. No one who takes any of this seriously, or who claims to, should even be entertaining the ideas of ghosts because there it is so far on from where the evidence actually is at the moment.

Your the person bringing up ghosts here. That is one theory, but being true skeptics we are open to all possabilities to "un-explained phenomena"

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Fact#1: Yes I do have evidence to back up these facts. Which boards users here are actually on the PIG team?

At least one of them does. Give me a list of all the PIG members here on boards.

You do have evidence yet you dont know who the members of PIG are brilliant


You keep mentioning this one member that does believe in ghosts. You are again stating a fact when you have never seen him investigate.

Overblood

Deleted User wrote: »

You do have evidence yet you dont know who the members of PIG are brilliant

My apologies I'm getting my teams mixed up. I know all the PIG members. Who are the Irish Paranormal people here on boards?

Do you really want me to show you evidence that at least one PIG member here already believed in ghosts? Maybe more? Really? I don't want to post it publicly anyways. I might PM you.

Or I could do a huge character review of each member here for all the public to see. I know EVARYTHING.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Your the person bringing up ghosts here.

No, a 5 second search on your web browser will show you that I'm not

Deleted User wrote: »

That is one theory

Ghosts did it is not a "theory" in any meaningful sense of that word. It is an uneducated guess that requires the introduction of a phenomena that no one has demonstrated even exists and that contradicts the vast majority of biology and physics.

Deleted User wrote: »

, but being true skeptics we are open to all possabilities to "un-explained phenomena"

Yes. And as soon as someone demonstrates that a ghost did something I'm perfectly happy to accept that is what happened.

But you may notice that no one has done that. And there have been far more convincing explanations put forward for why humans would invent a concept like a ghost.

So really, am I supposed to disregard everything else until I settle on an explanation that is appealing to followers of the paranormal.

That again is the very definition of close mindedness, refusing to look at evidence that doesn't fit with what you want to be true.

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

My apologies I'm getting my teams mixed up. I know all the PIG members, who are the Irish Paranormal people here on boards?

Do you really want me to show you evidence that at least one PIG member here already believed in ghosts? Maybe more? Really? I don't want to post it publicly anyways. I might PM you.

Or I could do a huge character review of each member here for all the public to see.

I think Dre is just going down the "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. Ha you can't. Therefore all paranormal belief is perfectly rational and reasonable" route.

Some what common on this forum.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

But you may notice that no one has done that. And there have been far more convincing explanations put forward for why humans would invent a concept like a ghost.
.

Eplanations but no proof

Overblood

Overblood wrote: »

Do you really want me to show you evidence that at least one PIG member here already believed in ghosts? Maybe more? Really? I don't want to post it publicly anyways. I might PM you.

If that member believes in ghosts you are saying that can be detomental to an investigation ?

So then not believing in ghosts would also be not detrimental to an investigation .Meaning you dont believe in ghosts so that really makes you one sided to this the whole subject .

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes iamhunted but the bit you guys continued miss is that they actually have to be demonstrated wrong

No one has ever EVER demonstrated that an unexplained phenomena such as a light or sound has a supernatural origin, let alone demonstrated that it is being caused by something like a ghost or a spirit or any of the other invented paranormal explanations.

The very idea of a "ghost" is so far removed from what any evidence has ever been gather the mention of the term is ridiculous in any serious context. A "ghost" is an imagined concept used to explain unexplained phenomena such as sounds or lights. No one who takes any of this seriously, or who claims to, should even be entertaining the ideas of ghosts because there it is so far on from where the evidence actually is at the moment.

round and round and round in circles. Im sorry - I cant take anything you say seriously considering you have never made any effort to back up your claims with any research of your own. You make cynical claims and expect me to just believe you.

Personally, I'd rather go looking and find out my own info and make up my own mind, not listen to a blinkered argument online from someone who has never even bothered doing the same..

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Dre is just going down the "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. Ha you can't. Therefore all paranormal belief is perfectly rational and reasonable" route.

Some what common on this forum.

the 'why not go and educate yourself a bit on what paranormal research is *actually* about' might be better advice.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I think Dre is just going down the "prove it, prove it, prove it, prove it. Ha you can't. Therefore all paranormal belief is perfectly rational and reasonable" route.

Some what common on this forum.

Other then your rout that you are not going to believe it untill proof is presented to you. :rolleyes:

iamhunted

its a waste of time arguing with cynics. I think they just like to hear themselves type.

iamhunted

iamhunted wrote: »

its a waste of time arguing with cynics. I think they just like to hear themselves type.

I was bored

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Eplanations but no proof

Well no one can prove anything in a scientific sense. What they should be trying to do though is to form a coherent and testable model (known in science as a theory) explaining the phenomena.

No one doing "paranormal research" has produced anything close to that for ghosts. That of course doesn't stop groups like the IPIC proclaim that ghosts are real and in fact what properties they seeming know they have.

Which is a bit odd. But when you point that out you are shot down for being close minded and cynical. Go figure :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

Other then your rout that you are not going to believe it untill proof is presented to you.

Yes, how close minded of me, not accepting an explanation as accurate until someone can actually show that it is :rolleyes:

Believer - That was a ghost
Sceptic - Er, how do you know that? The idea of a ghost contradicts some very well established biology, it would be a big deal if they actually existed and would make a lot of or other science wrong, science that has demonstrated itself accurate in tests. Can you demonstrate that they do exist?
Believer - Of course not, and I'm totally insulted that you ask that
Sceptic - What? But then how can you say it was a ghost. How can you even say what a ghost is in the first place?
Believer - OMG! You are so close minded! You shut yourself of to possibilities. How can you say I can't know that was a ghost
Sceptic - What? But you just said you cannot demonstrate that it was a ghost.
Believer - Demonstrations and tests and science are for close minded cynics like you. I know what I saw. I know it was a ghost. That is all I need and it is only close minded cynics like you who say I should have to "demonstrate" this
Sceptic - But you should, that is the point. Otherwise you could just be make up an explanation
Believer - I can't deal with you cynics you are so close minded you shut yourselves off to all possibility. I am open minded which is why I say it was a ghost and not anything else!

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

round and round and round in circles. Im sorry - I cant take anything you say seriously considering you have never made any effort to back up your claims with any research of your own.

Research of my own?

Yes just wait a minute there iamhunted while I go away and reinvent the scientific method :rolleyes:

iamhunted wrote: »

You make cynical claims and expect me to just believe you.

No, I make sceptical claims which annoy the hell out of you because you know that for all the paranormal research that you claim goes on no one has ever been able to demonstrate that any of the paranormal explanations for unexplained events are actually accurate or real.

To me that is a very good reason to be sceptical of paranormal claims. There are thousands of paranormal claims and none of them has ever been able to actually explain to scientific standards a phenomena.

But because I suspect you really want paranormal claims to be true you find this level of standards to be highly annoying. So you side step the failure of paranormal claims to actually explain anything and choose instead to attack those who point this out as being close minded and cynical.

iamhunted wrote: »

Personally, I'd rather go looking and find out my own info and make up my own mind

You shouldn't have to go away and find out on your own. That is nonsense.

If it is possible to demonstrate that this stuff is real then it should be possible to put it in a science paper and have the whole world look at it. If anyone can demonstrate that paranormal explanations accurately model phenomena I should be able to see that from my comfy armchair.

Of course no one has done that. Big shock! :eek:

So when you say go off and make up your own mind I suspect what you actually mean go along to something like the IPIC and get hood winked in the moment into believe explanations that have no scientific bases to explain anything.

It is like the people who say that astrology only works if you believe it will work. Well d'uh!

Overblood

I think the only thing to do now is to go through with Taximanmartin's plan! This discussion is going nowhere. I'm obviously way too "cynical". The definition of the words skeptic and open mindedness have been buggered to bits by the paranormal community here. Are any of you investigators educated in a scientific discipline? As in third level education?

And Grimes, an archeologist should surely come across thousands of ghosts when he/she digs up old plots around the world. Excavations should be riddled with free spirits. Any reports of that happening? Have you ever seen ghosts wandering around excavations? Or do they only appear in spooky castles. Hmm...