Proving to people in Paranormal forum that they can be tricked

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

There are no theories about the nature of energy after death.

Other than the normal physics and chemistry ones.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

no offense, but that is the most over simplified and strange description of the paranormal Ive ever read. It's kinda telling. I think when you talk of the paranormal and when myself, dre, grimes etc talk of it - we're actualyl on about two different things. Yours is some strange fairytale version - almost like The Sun or something - of what the paranormal is about. Just an observation - no offense meant.

Ghosts aren't paranormal? Ghosts aren't supposed to be the spirit of a dead person? Paranormal researchers don't go looking for ghosts in "haunted" place normally at night using equipment designed to see in the dark because for some reason they can't just turn on all the lights in the place?

My mistake. I must have read the IPIC website wrong :rolleyes:

I look forward to reading about the paranormal research into ghosts that takes place in crowded places in day light.

Overblood

Wicknight wrote: »

Other than the normal physics and chemistry ones.

Which are? When he says "the nature of energy after death" I assume he's talking about spirits.

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

Ghosts aren't paranormal? Ghosts aren't supposed to be the spirit of a dead person? Paranormal researchers don't go looking for ghosts in "haunted" place normally at night using equipment designed to see in the dark because for some reason they can't just turn on all the lights in the place?

My mistake. I must have read the IPIC website wrong :rolleyes:

I look forward to reading about the paranormal research into ghosts that takes place in crowded places in day light.

soooo ... you assume ghosts dont apepar in crowded places at daylight?

Thanks once more for proving my point.

Do you have any balls notion why people investigate in the dark? I dont think you do. Ever noticed people tend to be quieter in the dark and listen more attentively? Never mind - its all probably way above your head anyway. :rolleyes:

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

If you think that is what the argument is you really really aren't listening. Nor do you understand the first thing about the scientific method or what actual scepticism is

aye - and are you saying I'd learn from you? The person who cant tell 'skeptic' from 'cynic'?

hahahaha - thats brightened my morning just the thought of it.

Really, I take it your argument is exhausted and now you're just looking to stoke up a bit of trouble? Keep at it - you wont rile me.

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

We already have a scientific method iamhunted. Changing it to "suit" paranormal research would be doing a great disservice.

All paranormal investigators have to do is use the same scientific method as everyone else. But of course they don't because if they did they wouldn't be able to make claims like the IPIC do about ghosts and spirits and hauntings. And where is the fun in that!

It is very unexciting to say that something cannot be explained or that it was caused by the effect of the environment on the observer.


I unfortunately read your posts

scientific method as in

# 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
# 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
# 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
# 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
# 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

A quick google found that, and I really havent a fecken clue where you;re going with it. Paranormal research is between 1 and 2 at present. Which bit of that cant you see or understand?

You either don't know what cynical actually means or you choose to use that word as an insult. Neither Overblood nor myself are being cynical.

yes oh wise one. A cynic will only believe it when he sees it. a skeptic will always reserve some part of his mind and keep it open. You sir are a dyed in the wool cynic. Face it.

Demonstrate to scientific standards that a paranormal explanation, ANY PARANORMAL EXPLANATION, is accurately explaining a phenomena and we will gladly accept that.

We would only by cynical if after you had done that we still refused to accept the results and dismiss the explanation as nonsense.

So maybe we are very cynical but you lack the ability to even determine because so far no one has demonstrated a paranromal explanation is accurate using science.

So in the interests of science lets test if me and Overblood are cynical. You demonstrate a paranormal explanation using scientific standards and we will see if me or Overblood accept it or not or continue to reject it out of out right cynicism of you.

a) you dont know what cynical means in the real world and b) there is no means to scientifically prove the paranormal. Or havent you copped that yet?

Who says I haven't?

Who says you have? you havent anyway.

Why would I do that when plenty of other people have already done that?

The issue has never been that people don't know how to scientifically research unexplained phenomena. It is that people don't bother applying it.

what? explain who these 'plenty of other 'people are please. You think the scientific method is some kind of magic wand you wave at things? How has it been developed as far as paranormal research goes considering the nature of the paranormal? And agin, in you mind if it hasnt been applied then the paranormal doesnt exist. wow. thats small minded alright.

Well yes, there you go. How many paranormal research groups do you know who are developing scientific methods of research. Based on the IPIC website they certain are.

scientific? who mentioned that? Using common sense and logic is whats required - where are you getting 'scientific' from and why are you constantly gibbering on about IPIC??

As to why I'm not devoting my life to this pursuit? I don't really care that much, I already have a job I'm interested in thank you very much.

Your assertion that unless I devote my life to paranormal research I cannot be sceptical of the claimed results of paranormal research groups is frankly ridiculous. It is like claiming that unless I run for the Dial I shouldn't vote.

general rule of thumb is to have at least some idea of what you are arguing about. You seem to have a pretty hazy idea of what the paranormal is, yet Im meant to take your word that it doesnt exist. yeah, right.

Given that that sentence doesn't make sense (how can a claim/explanation be "fake") I doubt I would have suggested something so dumb.

What I do think is that paranormal claims/explanations are unsupported by any testable evidence and fail scientific standards. And apparently you agree with me because you are berating me to quit my job and go out there and figure out a way to support paranormal claims with testable evidence.

quit your job? who says to do that? Should I quit my job too? You aske me for testable evidence and I tell you to help out looking for it. whats the problem with that?

Any time you want to present a scientific study that has demonstrated the accuracy of a paranormal explanation go ahead ... until then I'm left with the conclusion that you are just attacking me because you have nothing to back up what you are saying.

Im attacking you eh? I question you;re complete belief that the paranormal isnt real and that anyone interested in it is obviously a bit less intelligent - not knowing what cynic means apparently no do I understand the scientific method ... unlike you of course who is way more intelligent. Yeah. God when can I finish this post. Its so boring.

Fakes are a completely separate issue. I've never said that I think anyone is faking anything.

Well you;ve still never managed to give me an answer for my evp I asked you about. it wasnt faked and it wasnt someone who was there, and it wasnt someone outside - but I seem to remember you couldnt explain that one. But of course, since you werent there you couldnt be sure and couldnt give an answer...... why did I have to explain that again?

If you cannot demonstrate an explanation is accurate why keep using it as an explanation? I mean other than because it is fun and exciting to do so.

Care to be more free with your thoughts there? what 'explaination' are you on about and are you telling me that unless something is proved then it cant exist?

See there you go again. Does that mean what can't happen? No one has a testable model of what is happening in the first place, it is impossible to determine if any of these explanations are accurate or not. That is the whole point.

No no - there YOU go again. You are telling me that unless you can prove a paranormal claim then that claim could never happen. Man, you'd make a great scientist alright with that attitude.

You say it is stupid and flakey and then you agree with most of what I'm saying. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of it. :rolleyes:

again - stay with the program. It was a skeptic on this thread who called the rest of us 'believers' (have to keep things simple for ye's with your Sun paranormal mentailty) flakey and stupid. PLus Im not 'agreeing' with you - you just dont have much of an idea of what you are arguing about.

Really, I'm pretty bored repeating myself in every one of these exactly the same threads.

iamhunted

thats the problem with this forum - the threads are so predicible, so repeatative and so boring. They all basically boil down to the same thing.

wheres the threads on EVPs and what might cause them? Threads on infrasound and how it can make people see things? can we have the real skeptical threads and not this cynical bull****?

This thread has offically bored me to tears so unless ye's can come up with something atleast arguable, then Im out. I did though find this online when looking up cynicasm v skeptism and it really seems to sound like a few people here:

A skeptic demands some reason or evidence for belief.
A cynic does not demand reason nor evicence for belief about motives of others beliefs, and/or refuses to believe regardless of evidence or reason.

I think cynics use skepticism as a guise.

Some on here may say they demand some reason or evidence for belief, but many refuse to believe regardless of evidence or reason - or more specifically, dont bother educating themselves enough to find the information in the first place.

Zombrex

Overblood wrote: »

Which are? When he says "the nature of energy after death" I assume he's talking about spirits.

I know, but I take exception to the way the term "energy" is banded about these days particularly by people who try and use the term to give some kind of scientific context to supernatural explanations.

Energy in science is a specific thing, it can be studied and modelled by science. There is chemical energy throughout your body, and when you die, and there is energy that turns into other types of energy.

What there isn't is any evidence that any of this is organised in the way your brain is that would allow the neurological pathways of your brain to "survive" after you die.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

yes oh wise one. A cynic will only believe it when he sees it. a skeptic will always reserve some part of his mind and keep it open. You sir are a dyed in the wool cynic. Face it.

What planet are you on? A cynic is someone who only believes it when they see it? What nonsense. No wonder you keep calling everyone a cynic

1. A person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

A cynic is a person who doesn't care what you say to them they have already decided you are talking s**t (...bit like you iamhaunted)

What a sceptic is is someone who requires convincing of a position, someone who does not automatically accept something just because you say it is true.

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

As overblood and myself have both said Convince us. Demonstrate it to us. Of course it seems just easier to keep dismissing this and calling us cynical because we don't automatically accept what we are told.

Riamfada

this thread is so far off topic. It has lost all relevance

iamhunted

i agree.

wicknight - stop looking up definitions (though "doesn't care what you say to them they have already decided you are talking s**t" really does fit) and learn the real world difference.

The main difference between a cynic and a skeptic is one will leave room to believe if needs be and the other wont. You - the one who is convinced your opinion is the right one, regardless of anything, and you do seem to have decided anyone who opposes you is talking ****e ("...bit like you iamhaunted" i think was your words)- dont seem to have left any room to entertain the fact you might be incorrect. therefore you are indeed cynical about the paranormal.

What a sceptic is is someone who requires convincing of a position, someone who does not automatically accept something just because you say it is true.

... just like many people involved in paranormal research. though I wouldnt expect you to know that considering your lack of interest in paranormal research itself.

That though, isnt what this thread is about.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

wicknight - stop looking up definitions (though "doesn't care what you say to them they have already decided you are talking s**t" really does fit) and learn the real world difference.

Cynic means what it means. Words don't change meaning simply because you are using them wrong.

iamhunted wrote: »

The main difference between a cynic and a skeptic is one will leave room to believe if needs be and the other wont.

So why do you keep calling me an Overblood cynics.

I have told you a thousand times that if you show me scientific evidence that a paranormal explanation is accurate I will accept that. How much more open can I be?

At the moment paranormal explanations are unsupported and would contradict very well established scientific theories. As such there is a huge amount of convince that is required before anyone serious about scientific standards accepts them. But it is always possible that current theories are wrong and that a paranormal explanation could be accurate. But you have to demonstrate this!!!

All this bluster about calling us cynics is simply to hide the fact that you know no one has ever done that.

So what exactly are we being close minded about?

iamhunted wrote: »

You - the one who is convinced your opinion is the right one, regardless of anything, and you do seem to have decided anyone who opposes you is talking ****e ("...bit like you iamhaunted" i think was your words)- dont seem to have left any room to entertain the fact you might be incorrect.

Well lets see. Demonstrate a paranormal explanation is scientifically accurate and then we will see how I react ... surely the easiest way to demonstrate how utterly cynical I am is to simply do this.

iamhunted wrote: »

... just like many people involved in paranormal research.

Possibly, if those involved in this research admit that they do not have enough information to use terms like "spirit" or "ghost" (or even paranormal) and don't start listing off the properties of an undead spirit.

In other words not the IPIC.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

I have told you a thousand times that if you show me scientific evidence that a paranormal explanation is accurate I will accept that. How much more open can I be?

Being a skeptic why dont you go look for yourself. You seem to have to say alot, basically "repete" what science is telling you. i know alot of skeptics some of them are published, the difference between you and them is you are a talker (repeter) no action .

If you are so pationate about the subject why dont you go out and look for yourself ?

Overblood

Why is the Paranormal forum in the Recreational section?

/thread

Riamfada

Overblood wrote: »

Why is the Paranormal forum in the Recreational section?

/thread

Because its an amature "science". Where do we claim to be professional scientists with published journals on the subject? We dont, its fun, its personal and keeps itself in its own little community not forcing its beliefs or practices on anyone or contending with mainstream science. Whats the problem?

iamhunted

Deleted User wrote: »

Being a skeptic why dont you go look for yourself. You seem to have to say alot, basically "repete" what science is telling you. i know alot of skeptics some of them are published, the difference between you and them is you are a talker (repeter) no action .

If you are so pationate about the subject why dont you go out and look for yourself ?

i think wicknight hinted at the fact that why should s/he bother, or s/he'd have to give up his/her job or something. Either way, its much easier to talk the talk online rather than walk the walk to find such things out for his/her self. Thats all i can glean from wicknights posts anyway.Dont know Overbloods reason for not doing a bit of research though. As I said before, same old same old. Its no wonder this part of the forum is a ghost town (pardon the pun).

Anyway - back to the OP. No, dont do it. It's a silly idea.

Riamfada

iamhunted wrote: »

It's a silly idea.

And we would put are curse on you. At least they are scientifically proven

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

i think wicknight hinted at the fact that why should s/he bother, or s/he'd have to give up his/her job or something. Either way, its much easier to talk the talk online rather than walk the walk to find such things out for his/her self.

Ok, so I ask you (the "expert" in the paranormal) to provide any evidence that any paranormal claim is accurately modelling a any unexplained phenomena. Anything at all. Ever. In the history of the world. And you tell me to go find out for myself.

Bravo :rolleyes:

You guys spend a whole lot of time avoiding the central issue here. Telling me to go find out for myself is some what ridiculous. I really don't care that much but then I'm not the one making claims that the paranormal explanations can explain phenomena.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Being a skeptic why dont you go look for yourself.

Because I don't care. I'm happy if the paranormal doesn't exist. I have no strong desire to go out and try and demonstrate that it does. The explanation that those who think they have experienced the paranormal are actually mistaken or being tricked by the environment (ie the only explanation that has any scientific backing) doesn't trouble me.

So why would I go devote a lot of my own time to trying to find something that there is no evidence even exists?

That said if any paranormal research group wants to bring me along as a sceptic mind to bounce their claims off I'm happy to do that. I will be brutal in keeping claims in check.

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to have to say alot, basically "repete" what science is telling you. i know alot of skeptics some of them are published, the difference between you and them is you are a talker (repeter) no action .

I've no problem being a repeater. I would not be so arrogant to assume that I'm going to come up with a break through in the scientific method. A lot smarter people than me have spent a lot of time devising the philosophy of science and did a very good job of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are so pationate about the subject why dont you go out and look for yourself ?

I am passionate about science. I'm really not that passionate about the paranormal (the most interesting thing for me about the paranormal is the studies into how the brain tricks itself into believing something is there when it isn't).

I am passionate about people claiming or pretending to be following science when discussing the paranormal when they really aren't. That distorts and degrades the standards of science in the public eye giving people a false idea about what actual science is.

So actually this forum is exactly where I want to be, thanks.

Zombrex

Grimes wrote: »

Because its an amature "science". Where do we claim to be professional scientists with published journals on the subject?

Science, amateur or otherwise, is far removed from what goes on this the Paranormal forum. Which is fine (science is far removed from what goes on on the football forum or the cooking forum), but why the need for all the paranormal guys to believe they are engaged in science?

Grimes wrote: »

Whats the problem?

Saying things like "its an amature "science"" is the problem, unless by putting science in quotations you meant to imply that it is nothing like science.

Like it or not you are publishing stuff. Stuff that other people read. If it is wrong or distorting you should expect (happily one would think) that others will comment on what is being claimed and correct any mistakes or distortions.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Saying things like "its an amature "science"" is the problem, unless by putting science in quotations you meant to imply that it is nothing like science.

Is being on an internet forum and using other people's theorys commenting on something that you have never done a science ?

iamhunted

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so I ask you (the "expert" in the paranormal) to provide any evidence that any paranormal claim is accurately modelling a any unexplained phenomena. Anything at all. Ever. In the history of the world. And you tell me to go find out for myself.

Bravo :rolleyes:

You guys spend a whole lot of time avoiding the central issue here. Telling me to go find out for myself is some what ridiculous. I really don't care that much but then I'm not the one making claims that the paranormal explanations can explain phenomena.

you really are barking up the wrong tree, but howanever.

First up, since we dont know what the parnormal is, there's no such thing as an expert on the subject. and yes, go find out for yourself - where did you get the idea that we're all here to prove something to you? Ask all you want (have you explained that EVP yet?) but the answer still is go find out for yourself.

Basically anyone else's 'proof' (whatever that is) is always open to suspicion, so henceforth the advice to go find your own. at least then you know you can trust it. I have no idea what part of that you dont understand. If I stuck the word 'science' in there, would you pretend to get it?

In your mind you are a scientist arent you? While the rest of us are low intelligent plebs? I thought so.

All Hail The Internet Armchair Scientist!

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

Is being on an internet forum and using other people's theorys commenting on something that you have never done a science ?

Yes

Are you under the impression that a person cannot mention the scientific method, or comment on how something doesn't follow it, unless they themselves came up with the scientific method?

Because that would be a bit silly.

iamhunted

too.
bored.
to.
bother.
continuing.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

First up, since we dont know what the parnormal is

So do you agree that when people use terms like "ghost" or "spirit" or start listing of properties of these concepts (like the IPIC do) they are basically just making s**t up?

Correct?

iamhunted wrote: »

Ask all you want (have you explained that EVP yet?) but the answer still is go find out for yourself.

Why?

If all this has been demonstrated as real why can't you just tell me how that was done and who did it?

Or are you saying now that in fact none of this has ever been demonstrated?

iamhunted wrote: »

Basically anyone else's 'proof' (whatever that is) is always open to suspicion, so henceforth the advice to go find your own.

Nonsense. A scientific theory should be testable by anyone. Repeatability is a key to science. Otherwise you are just talking about untestable personal interpretation ("I think I saw something, I'm going to say it was a ghost")

My senses are as flawed as yours and my ability to figure out on my own what I have seen or heard is as flawed as your ability. Which is why in science you don't go personal interpretation of data. That is a key point of science.

For someone who gets very annoyed at the accusation that you need to read up on the scientific method you make some rather unscientific suggestions.

iamhunted wrote: »

at least then you know you can trust it.

But I couldn't trust it. That is the whole point :rolleyes:

Man alive, what part of this do you guys not get? Human perception is flawed. Very flawed.

"I saw it" means absolutely nothing, whether it comes from me or from you, as any half arsed magician can tell you.

iamhunted wrote: »

In your mind you are a scientist arent you? While the rest of us are low intelligent plebs? I thought so.

I have no idea how intelligent you are. I do think you are ridiculously stubborn and for some reason really hate the idea of anyone questioning your assumptions.

Oryx

The mention of our flawed senses ties in nicely with a book Im currently reading, called Supersense. (The authors name escapes me, but google will get it for ya) An interesting study of how our minds hardwired and then trained into a belief in the supernatural. I recommend it to all whove commented here.

The last two pages to me, have been a game of ping pong between ye guys which has really got ye nowhere. I think it would be a great idea if Overblood and Wicknight did come along to a PIG investigation (with the agreement of the organisers) to see if their beliefs as to what goes on are correct, and whether they think its valid to try and trick anyone in that scenario. I think a trick scenario would be good, but only if it was open. As in, you will be given false evidence tonight guys, but were not saying when. Its up to you to know what it is. A more hidden trickery just breeds bad feeling among us.

iamhunted

I aint ping poinging no more. I too think they should both join an investigation. might give them sound idea of what actually goes on.

But I couldn't trust it. That is the whole point

sooo ..... OK, just once more. Your statement above wicknight is EXACTLY why you have to go find these things yourself. Do you understand that at last?

aww the trick senario has been done to death.Had great fun too But with regards to them coming along i wouldnt have a problem.

Riamfada

Deleted User wrote: »

aww the trick senario has been done to death.Had great fun too But with regards to them coming along i wouldnt have a problem.

Meh I can go out with the girlfriend and have my past time ridiculed. At least I will most likely get some sex afterwards. I dont really have an interest in people sneering and jeering while im trying to have some fun on an investigation.

Zombrex

iamhunted wrote: »

I aint ping poinging no more. I too think they should both join an investigation. might give them sound idea of what actually goes on.

Possibly, but I suspect that if what goes on was vastly different and more scientific than what I suspect goes on from reading the IPIC and PIGs web page you would have already explained the details I'm apparently missing

You seem to spend your entire time avoiding actually supporting your points or accusations. All this nonsense about how "cynical" everyone else is is a case in point.

iamhunted wrote: »

sooo ..... OK, just once more. Your statement above wicknight is EXACTLY why you have to go find these things yourself. Do you understand that at last?

that doesn't make any sense

• You say go have a look yourself
• I say ok but that won't be any better because I no more trust my own perceptions that I trust yours
• And you say that is exactly why I have to go have a look myself.

What?

What we actually need is some repeatable experiment. In which case I don't have to do anything, I can read the results from the comfy chair I'm in at the moment.