Barry Fitzgerald making some good points about 'ghost hunting'

maccored

All within the first 10 mins - barry makes some good points on how people are using equipment they dont understand and not observing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkBVBKrvViQ

Chaos Marine

This stuff is nonsense. Instinct? Instinct isn't scientifically verifiable. A lot of what's being said is a load of anecdotes being used as evidence and anecdotes do not count as proof or evidence. And talking about taking mind altering substances... yeah, that's all the proof you need that these guys are taking only tea and biscuits.

maccored

Chaos Marine wrote: »

This stuff is nonsense. Instinct? Instinct isn't scientifically verifiable. A lot of what's being said is a load of anecdotes being used as evidence and anecdotes do not count as proof or evidence. And talking about taking mind altering substances... yeah, that's all the proof you need that these guys are taking only tea and biscuits.

Yeah sure theres no such thing as instinct. :rolleyes:

Chaos Marine

I never said there's no such thing as instinct. I said instinct isn't scientifically verifiable. Therefore instinct isn't proof. There's this thing called confirmation bias. It would be very easy for a person to start viewing results and remembering the results that back up what the person wishes to be correct. As an example, if say, a person drops a slice of toast and it lands butter side up or down about fifty percent of the time, confirmation bias could have the person believe that it lands one way or the other depending on what they want to believe.

This is why people erroneously assume prayer affects the outcomes of anything. People want to believe that a god exists and that it's listening so they'll focus on the "answered" prayers and not the unanswered prayers.

My original point stands. Instinct is not scientifically verifiable and is therefore not acceptable as scientific proof. Same as anecdotes.

maccored

I dont understand where you think anyone is saying they are. do you have any notion what 'paranormal investigators' do, or their thought proceeses, or the fact they dont actually really believe everything in the world is paranormal? and in barrys case, doesnt go near "mind altering substances"?

he basically stating that many people rely on gadgets they dont know how to use and dont understand how to interpret the results of. im supposing youve stumbled across the paranormal forum and decided to enlighten us all about how smart you are and how stupid we are. dont waste your time. theres no paranormal bible, all of us have completely different ideas of what constitute the paranormal and none of us have any time for stereotyping from people who wander in.

Chaos Marine

A bit in one of the guys is saying the human body is the best tool for detecting spirits or whatever. Then another guy tries to back him up with an anecdote in which his gut instincts was proved to be correct over the results of instruments.

They also talk about consuming or taking substances to to alter their perceptions.

But hey, if you're so insecure about your beliefs that you feel it necessary to try and brow beat me out of the forum, by all means. I won't bother you any more.

Riamfada

Everyone's opinions are valid here.

maccored

Chaos Marine wrote: »

A bit in one of the guys is saying the human body is the best tool for detecting spirits or whatever. Then another guy tries to back him up with an anecdote in which his gut instincts was proved to be correct over the results of instruments.

They also talk about consuming or taking substances to to alter their perceptions.

But hey, if you're so insecure about your beliefs that you feel it necessary to try and brow beat me out of the forum, by all means. I won't bother you any more.

thats their own personal opinions - everyone has one of them. Personally I dont agree with those bits either but Im not so 'insecure' that I feel the need to start branding :rolleyes: