Disruption of Threads - Tell Us What You Think

MrMojoRisin

As most people have probably observed on this forum lately, threads have been disrupted and derailed due to scornful, dismissive or downright insulting posts by certain posters.

In addition to breaching the Charter, this practice stunts the purpose of the forum, which is to maintain open, respectful discussion of the paranormal.

I'm adding a poll to find out how much of a negative effect this type of trolling is having on those wishing to post on threads.

Please vote and let us know what you think.

Thank you.

Note: Anyone who derails threads, demands proof/validity of people's experiences or insults posters for their views will face punitive action from now on.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

It's not so much the scornful ones that put me off, it's the know it all self proclaimed 'experts' who portray themselves as an authority on the paranormal and condescend on others who aren't in their 'clique'. Sh1te spouters do my head in!!!

maccored

theres not too many round here who have ever proclaimed themselves as 'experts' .... one thing we all know is that there arent any experts in the paranormal field since no-one really knows what one needs to be an expert at.

I dont mind those with possibly overtly cynical views in the paranormal forum ..... thats what difference of opinions is all about. I do wish though that those who post really really stupidly simplistic solutions should realise the rest of us arent thick and there's no doubt their proposed solution has already been thought through and rejected. like ' i saw a man in my house' with the answer 'it was one of your friends taking the piss' etc etc

Gumbi

Why is demand of proof considered a bannable offence? I can understand it if it derails the thread, but if someone wants to discuss paranormal phenomena, and whether it exists or not, surely this "offence" is a prerequisite to the discussion?

maccored

what is 'proof' though? THose asking for proof of the paranormal are on the wrong side of the fence (EDIT _ that last sentence is completely wrong considering most people on this forum, one way or another, would like to see some actual, tangible proof. Thought i'd stick this in rather than deleting it though).

At this point in time, the best chance anyone has of 'proving' the paranormal to themselves, is to go out there and be part of those trying to see if they can find proof in the first place. Theres no point asking people for it, as personal experiences wont do, and video or audio etc can easily be faked.

Gumbi

maccored wrote: »

what is 'proof' though? THose asking for proof of the paranormal are on the wrong side of the fence (EDIT _ that last sentence is completely wrong considering most people on this forum, one way or another, would like to see some actual, tangible proof. Thought i'd stick this in rather than deleting it though).

At this point in time, the best chance anyone has of 'proving' the paranormal to themselves, is to go out there and be part of those trying to see if they can find proof in the first place. Theres no point asking people for it, as personal experiences wont do, and video or audio etc can easily be faked.

I don't understand what you mean. This may sound trivial, but I do believe that a land mass known as Australia does in fact exist, though I've never actually been there. You probably do too, and probably for the same reason (or if you've been there, somewhere else may fit the bill).

To answer your question, proof is considered sufficient evidence to support the truth/validity of something. Anecdotal evidence is not very substantive, to be honest, for anybody but perhaps you (not you specifically ) to believe.

MrMojoRisin

maccored wrote: »

what is 'proof' though? THose asking for proof of the paranormal are on the wrong side of the fence (EDIT _ that last sentence is completely wrong considering most people on this forum, one way or another, would like to see some actual, tangible proof. Thought i'd stick this in rather than deleting it though).

At this point in time, the best chance anyone has of 'proving' the paranormal to themselves, is to go out there and be part of those trying to see if they can find proof in the first place. Theres no point asking people for it, as personal experiences wont do, and video or audio etc can easily be faked.

The reason why I became interested in the paranormal area at all to begin with was after I witnessed some unusual experiences personally, and in my own family. That was my 'proof', although I'm sure there are many who would scoff at the validity of that. Then again, I never set out to 'prove' things to people - my experiencing something I struggled to explain is handled pretty much the same way as me watching an episode of Top Gear; I saw it, but I don't always feel the need to talk about it and dissect it with, every single person.

It could have easily been the case that I never witnessed anything unusual that made me sit up and take notice in the way that I did. I wouldn't even be on this forum at all now if things had gone that way.. So I suppose I took the 'proof-explore the paranormal' (even if the proof is only personal) route instead of the 'paranormal-proof please' (empirical and/or personal proof) route.

At the same time, I think it's important for a person to find their own truth, whether that ultimately means they decide that most things of a 'paranormal' nature are groundless, that aliens, for example, are real, or that there are definitely parallel universes and an afterlife, etc. Whatever anyone else says, you'll only be fully satisfied when you've reached your own personal, experience-driven conclusions and that, in turn, could take a whole lifetime.

I'm sure that, even when I'm nearing the end of my life, there will still be a fair few things I'm unsure about, or baffled by. I suppose the most valuable thing is looking at all of the paranormal stuff for interest's sake alone without being relentlessly tunnel-visioned about finding the right answers/conclusions for, or about, it a.s.a.p. I think that's where getting out there actively, i.e. travelling to 'haunted'/mystical places, to see what you find comes in.

I also think that, even if someone had the most stunning, near-flawless evidence of something being 'paranormal', it would still be rejected or doubted..

Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe most people are more fulfilled trying to find proof for themselves instead of finding proof to spoon-feed to, or change the minds of, other people. And if every person took that responsibility, there would probably be a lot more to add to discussions, and the possibility of reaching a broader and richer understanding of something.

maccored

if you had been alive in 234bc and someone told you australia (or whatever the landmass was called then) existed, would you have believed them? probably not as you would have had no way to know for sure.

Proof is a word used for information that would back up a claim in some way. You cant really use that word when trying to pinpoint things that people rarely see or experience.

As I say, I could see a ghost today and video it, but when you see the video you'd think it was faked. In that scenario, Did I have the proof? yes. Was it any use at all? No.

You last sentence outlines the point I was making. You (or the person concerned) is really the only thing thats worth convincing, so though it may end up anecdotal, that doesnt matter if the person who witnessed it is convinced of what they saw. Who cares who else is convinced ... it doesnt matter.

At the same time, you could see a video of the same thing, or hear audio from the same exerpeice and yet thats no good to you either, as audio and video can be faked ... so what is proof (as far as the paranormal is concerned)? First hand experience is 'anecdotal' and video and audio can be faked. The only person that it actually matters to is the person who experienced it, in my mind.

Gumbi wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean. This may sound trivial, but I do believe that a land mass known as Australia does in fact exist, though I've never actually been there. You probably do too, and probably for the same reason (or if you've been there, somewhere else may fit the bill).

To answer your question, proof is considered sufficient evidence to support the truth/validity of something. Anecdotal evidence is not very substantive, to be honest, for anybody but perhaps you (not you specifically ) to believe.

ghosthunter73

The only thing that annoys me is when someone brings personal issues into a public forum like this one.
In my eyes if a memeber post a question be prepared to hear both sides even if you do not like what the person is saying. That being said both sides must be presented in a non-threathening way. Calling people names or degrading them because of their view, question, picture or what ever it is is just wrong.

I think we all need to step back and think of a time when we had just started looking into, researching the paranormal. No one walks into this knowing everything. I myself can remember when *wait for it* I thought MH was a great show *ducts*. I know better now but that is just because i have done my research on the internet in books , videos and learned from more experienced people then drawn my own conclusions.
People look to these forums for honest not degrading advice. Ok my views on certain subjects may differ but thats all they are MY opinions. If you don't agree I don't care but i will listen to you.
Lets be honest to eachother there was a time when we all thought EMF meters found ghosts or Orbs were paranormal but true scientists have proven in a controlled laboratory envirnment otherwise. If you still want to think differently then ok that's your right.

There have been times in the past where i have stopped posting here because of the constant ridicule or certain memebers interjecting with personal comments. Lately these people seem to have disapeared or just dont bother with my comments either way its a win for me.
I hope this makes sense I havent finished my coffee yet:D

Gumbi

maccored wrote: »

if you had been alive in 234bc and someone told you australia (or whatever the landmass was called then) existed, would you have believed them? probably not as you would have had no way to know for sure.

Proof is a word used for information that would back up a claim in some way. You cant really use that word when trying to pinpoint things that people rarely see or experience.

As I say, I could see a ghost today and video it, but when you see the video you'd think it was faked. In that scenario, Did I have the proof? yes. Was it any use at all? No.

You last sentence outlines the point I was making. You (or the person concerned) is really the only thing thats worth convincing, so though it may end up anecdotal, that doesnt matter if the person who witnessed it is convinced of what they saw. Who cares who else is convinced ... it doesnt matter.

At the same time, you could see a video of the same thing, or hear audio from the same exerpeice and yet thats no good to you either, as audio and video can be faked ... so what is proof (as far as the paranormal is concerned)? First hand experience is 'anecdotal' and video and audio can be faked. The only person that it actually matters to is the person who experienced it, in my mind.

I would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see why a video, which COULD easily have been faked, would be enough for someone to believe in the "paranormal".

Gumbi

ghosthunter73 wrote: »

The only thing that annoys me is when someone brings personal issues into a public forum like this one.
In my eyes if a memeber post a question be prepared to hear both sides even if you do not like what the person is saying. That being said both sides must be presented in a non-threathening way. Calling people names or degrading them because of their view, question, picture or what ever it is is just wrong.

I think we all need to step back and think of a time when we had just started looking into, researching the paranormal. No one walks into this knowing everything. I myself can remember when *wait for it* I thought MH was a great show *ducts*. I know better now but that is just because i have done my research on the internet in books , videos and learned from more experienced people then drawn my own conclusions.
People look to these forums for honest not degrading advice. Ok my views on certain subjects may differ but thats all they are MY opinions. If you don't agree I don't care but i will listen to you.
Lets be honest to eachother there was a time when we all thought EMF meters found ghosts or Orbs were paranormal but true scientists have proven in a controlled laboratory envirnment otherwise. If you still want to think differently then ok that's your right.

There have been times in the past where i have stopped posting here because of the constant ridicule or certain memebers interjecting with personal comments. Lately these people seem to have disapeared or just dont bother with my comments either way its a win for me.
I hope this makes sense I havent finished my coffee yet:D

Fair points.

maccored

Sure Im only after saying that so who are you arguing with?

What would be enough to believe in the paranormal? Where are you going to get your "extraordinary evidence"? Personally, as Ive already mentioned, you'll only find that evidence if you go looking for it, since video and audio certainly aren't suitable.

Which brings me to the point - too many 'critical thinkers' sit on their asrses demanding proof ... yet they'll never get any unless they go out there and look.

Gumbi wrote: »

I would argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see why a video, which COULD easily have been faked, would be enough for someone to believe in the "paranormal".

Gumbi

maccored wrote: »

Sure Im only after saying that so who are you arguing with?

What would be enough to believe in the paranormal? Where are you going to get your "extraordinary evidence"? Personally, as Ive already mentioned, you'll only find that evidence if you go looking for it, since video and audio certainly aren't suitable.

Which brings me to the point - too many 'critical thinkers' sit on their asrses demanding proof ... yet they'll never get any unless they go out there and look.

First of all, that's not the point. I hate to continue to be so trivial, but here's another example. I don't believe in unicorns. I shouldn't have to go out there and prove to someone who DOES that they DON'T.

maccored

Lets look at that. Say I believe in unicorns and you dont. why would you even bother trying to convince me otherwise? If you liked golf and I didnt, why would I bother trying to tell you not to play it, or that it as crap?

People who constantly slag off the paranormal obviously are more interested in it than they like to admit. Reqally - if you dont believe in ghosts - fair enough ... but why hang around a paranormal forum ?

The other point is, just because you dont believe in something, why should that make any odds to me? Answer - it doesnt .. except for silly statements like having to prove to someone who DOES that they DON'T.

Why do you have to?

Then in relation to the paranormal, Im going to assume you feel you have to because other people are wrong. Dammit - people on the internet are (in your opinion) wrong.

Yet you havent bothered doing any kind of research (going by your last statement). Thats real smart right there.

I love the way these debates go - cynics say its bull**** and they demand proof - then they're told they wont find the proof until they look for it ... like anything else in life, and the reply is why should they prove something is bull****.

I say - if you think the paranormal is bull****, thats no skin of anyone elses teeth. But paranormal cynics should ask themselves why they got so bothered by it all. Certainly doesnt make sense to frequent a paranormal forum.

Personally I think its personality issues where cynics have to feel like they are smart and know things. We all know they dont actually know anything.

Gumbi

You completely missed the point I was making. If you tell me unicorns exist, I'm going to say "prove it". I don't have to waste my time proving something doesn't exist; that's nonsensical. The only reason I posted here is because I saw it n the main boards page. I've done the same thing for a lot of random fora.

You incite laziness in that I haven't researched the topic. You're missing point. Saying we won't find proof for it unless we look for it is a copout.

The point is, simply, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. As a rational human being (I like to think so, at least), I'm not going to believe in something until there is sufficient evidence to justify it.

By the way, liking something is completely unrelated to the truth of something.

maccored

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.

maccored

I'd still like you to explain to me exactly what kind of 'proof' you're expecting.

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

As I already asked ... what is proof anyway?



Science would be in pretty **** shape if scientists sat there demanding people prove things to them, rather than go and do the research themselves.

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.

CiaranC

maccored wrote: »

As I already asked ... what is proof anyway?

Are you serious? Didnt you go to school?

Suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

maccored

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.

CiaranC wrote: »

Are you serious? Didnt you go to school?

Suggest you read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

CiaranC

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.

maccored

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.

maccored

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

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.

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?

maccored

CiaranC wrote: »

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.

Answer my question - what would you regard as plausible proof as far as the paranormal is concerned?

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

For gods sake. Who would they ask? Other scientists? And then they get the info (according to you) by asking someone else?

I never said that.
If someone alleges the existence of something, they must have some evidence to back it up, if not actual proof.

maccored

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.

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

I never said that.
If someone alleges the existence of something, they must have some evidence to back it up, if not actual proof.

Urizen

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? :P 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.

maccored

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.

Fuzzy Clam

maccored wrote: »

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"

maccored

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.

maccored

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

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"

I dont see the contradiction. At present, you'll only be able to fully believe in something paranormal if it happened to you. theres no other 'proof' Are you arguing I am incorrect?

The onus at present is on anyone who wants to understand what the paranormal is about. If you arent interested in it enough to want to do that then - no - no-ones asking you to do anything. Same thing though - back to that old 'why are you posting in a paranormal forum if you have no interest in the subject' question.

I would love to know what you believe would constitute as proof of a paranormal event. then tell me who's meant to go find out that info and why they should wish to research the paranormal and then report back to you, just to fill you in on the details?