People who see the paranormal; mentally ill, hoaxters, or the 'placebo' effect?

Victor wrote: »

People could also be mistaken, misled or just not well educated. Look at how long it takes kids to work out Santa.

Then there's people who are intoxicated.

Imagine you are out in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night with nobody around and you hear screaming. What conclusion do you come to? Banshee?

Or, if you are in the know, a fox?

Did you ever hear a fox barking mating call etc.?

pone2012 wrote: »

Que war between those who cannot provide evidence for/against in 3...2..1

Not really much of a prediction given the nature of the thread.

pone2012 wrote: »

Fwiw I like to keep an open mind

So do I, but unfortunately "open mind" does not mean what a lot of people think it means. A lot of people seem to think it means that you should lend an automatic minimum level of credence to even the most egregiously nonsense claims.

What it ACTUALLY means however is to be willing to accept as credible, or true, any claim that is actually presented with substantiation..... regardless of whether you like the claim (or its implications) or not.

pone2012 wrote: »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/

I have seen some horrific material of people who clearly had physical issues at the level of the brain who were simply used by people wanting to claim demonic possession exists.

Derren Brown worked, for example, with a person who claimed to be a ghost hunter. One of the videos he showed as "evidence" for demonic possession was very clearly people standing around chanting and praying at a man who was obviously having a text book ceasure.

Horrific to watch someone obviously ill and in need of medical attention being exploited to fulfill a narrative.

pone2012 wrote: »

You nor I, I imagine ..have had none whatsoever, and our knowledge most likely pales in comparison..So we can assume he has a greater breath of knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon. Not to mention he risks his professional reputation speaking out about the topic

None of which is relevant AT ALL. You are basically, as you have done on other threads before, moving to the "appeal to authority" fallacy. You seem to be often impressed by credentials. Impressed enough to entirely miss the fact the person making the claim has offered ZERO evidence for the claim.

Credentials say nothing. The evidence presented WITH a claim does.

pone2012 wrote: »

Yes because explaining nonphysical phenomena is that easy isnt it?

Doing honest double blind experiments is easy. For example Sam Parnia, a person heavily biased TOWARDS the paranormal and the after life, is still an honest scientist.

And one of the things Parnia did was to construct a strong double blind experiment to test the claims of OBE during NDE. His methodology was good to my knowledge.

What was found? Nothing. Not a single shred of supporting evidence that people describing OBE actually were floating around the room outside their body AT ALL.

Bias and credentials say nothing in the face of a well constructed study.

Funny how all evidence for "non physical occurrences" entirely falls away with even the simplest of sound methodology put into place. Because invariably the people offering anecdotes of "non physical phenomenon" make claims off the back of it that very much CAN be tested and verified.

OBE itself, for example, might be "non physical" in that some kind of "soul" or "spirit" is leaving the body (they claim). But they ALSO claim to be floating over the operating table looking down on their own body and the doctors working on it. And that very much CAN be tested and verified.

railer201 wrote: »

Just because you personally have never had a paranormal experience, doesn't mean that the paranormal doesn't exist.

And equally just because people report (and often distort and exaggerate) unusual personal experiences does not mean the paranormal DOES exist.

railer201 wrote: »

whether they want to wrestle with closed minds on the subject is another matter.

Nothing close minded about refusing to accept claims based on insufficient or entirely no evidence. Quite the opposite in fact.

railer201 wrote: »

Unfortunately, ghosts can't be captured and put in a specimen jar to convince unbelievers.

Did anyone ask specifically for that level of evidence though? The problem is not that such people can not present that specific evidence. The problem is that people making such claims can not present ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests the claims to be credible (let alone true).

railer201 wrote: »

It's not entirely subjective either as there can be witnesses to any particular event.

How is that not subjective

Also the problem of subjectivity is not just the witness, it is the narrative people put on what they witnessed after the event.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really much of a prediction given the nature of the thread.



So do I, but unfortunately "open mind" does not mean what a lot of people think it means. A lot of people seem to think it means that you should lend an automatic minimum level of credence to even the most egregiously nonsense claims.

What it ACTUALLY means however is to be willing to accept as credible, or true, any claim that is actually presented with substantiation..... regardless of whether you like the claim (or its implications) or not.



I have seen some horrific material of people who clearly had physical issues at the level of the brain who were simply used by people wanting to claim demonic possession exists.

Derren Brown worked, for example, with a person who claimed to be a ghost hunter. One of the videos he showed as "evidence" for demonic possession was very clearly people standing around chanting and praying at a man who was obviously having a text book ceasure.

Horrific to watch someone obviously ill and in need of medical attention being exploited to fulfill a narrative.



None of which is relevant AT ALL. You are basically, as you have done on other threads before, moving to the "appeal to authority" fallacy. You seem to be often impressed by credentials. Impressed enough to entirely miss the fact the person making the claim has offered ZERO evidence for the claim.

Credentials say nothing. The evidence presented WITH a claim does.



Doing honest double blind experiments is easy. For example Sam Parnia, a person heavily biased TOWARDS the paranormal and the after life, is still an honest scientist.

And one of the things Parnia did was to construct a strong double blind experiment to test the claims of OBE during NDE. His methodology was good to my knowledge.

What was found? Nothing. Not a single shred of supporting evidence that people describing OBE actually were floating around the room outside their body AT ALL.

Bias and credentials say nothing in the face of a well constructed study.

Funny how all evidence for "non physical occurrences" entirely falls away with even the simplest of sound methodology put into place. Because invariably the people offering anecdotes of "non physical phenomenon" make claims off the back of it that very much CAN be tested and verified.

OBE itself, for example, might be "non physical" in that some kind of "soul" or "spirit" is leaving the body (they claim). But they ALSO claim to be floating over the operating table looking down on their own body and the doctors working on it. And that very much CAN be tested and verified.

Open mind is not lending credence to anything.. But equally it isn't laboratory experiment or it didn't happen...there's sufficient evidence present in the video provided considering scientists are testing to try and falsify his claims... Which they couldn't

The evidence is present in the documented video... You don't believe it..go and seek out the man himself to try and disprove it.. Many people have searched for him, and all return saying the same thing.. He and what he does is as real as the skin on your body...that's scientists, students and patients

And FYI, Parnia is a Medical doctor... In no position to be labelled an authority on the topic...Try Bruce Greysons work.. If you're going to discuss NDES /OBES that is

pone2012 wrote: »

Open mind is not lending credence to anything.. But equally it isn't laboratory experiment or it didn't happen...there's sufficient evidence present in the video provided considering scientists are testing to try and falsify his claims... Which they couldn't

The evidence is present in the documented video... You don't believe it..go and seek out the man himself to try and disprove it.. Many people have searched for him, and all return saying the same thing.. He and what he does is as real as the skin on your body...that's scientists, students and patients

And FYI, Parnia is a Medical doctor... In no position to be labelled an authority on the topic...Try Bruce Greysons work.. If you're going to discuss NDES /OBES that is

you have this backwards. his claims are bogus until he can prove otherwise in an environment he does not control.

just because science cannot prove it does not mean it doesn't exist. science is knowledge without love  biggest disappointment i heard was from professor cox formally of pop group d ream, "just because i cannot prove a after life it must mean it doesn't  exist" so he must know everything so.. . i would not be so quick to judge or mock such things unless of course you have knowledge other wise please enlighten us or can prove them wrong.

dubjay wrote: »

just because science cannot prove it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Further however, just because science fails to find ANY evidence for a claim absolutely does not mean the claim is true either. While your sentence is pedantically entirely correct..... it actually says nothing useful.

dubjay wrote: »

"just because i cannot prove a after life it must mean it doesn't  exist"

Where are you citing that from exactly?

dubjay wrote: »

i would not be so quick to judge or mock such things unless of course you have knowledge other wise please enlighten us or can prove them wrong.

There is only one judgement I can offer, or need offer, for an unsubstantiated claim and that is merely to point out THAT it is an unsubstantiated claim. What other judgement is required?

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Your personal belief has no bearing on reality. You either know, or don't know to varying degrees of certainty. Believing is irrelevant.

personal experience matters. tbh though, can't be arsed discussing it. people who have had experiences don't need to convince those who haven't. Personally it's no skin off my nose what anyone else thinks - each to their own

GerryDerpy wrote: »

If they don't want to convince others then why be ratty when questioned?

I don't care much either to be honest, I'm comfortable in my stance.

probably because those who question think they are better, smarter or more 'critical' in their thinking. Condescending in other words. No-one likes that

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And equally just because people report (and often distort and exaggerate) unusual personal experiences does not mean the paranormal DOES exist.

That's assuming distortion and exaggeration, which is unnecessary in a lot of cases as the events are dramatic enough.

Nothing close minded about refusing to accept claims based on insufficient or entirely no evidence. Quite the opposite in fact.

The thread title states that people who see the paranormal as being mentally ill, or hoaxers or at best fooling themselves (placebo) - no mention of the possibility of paranormal events being true. That's closed minded to me.

Did anyone ask specifically for that level of evidence though? The problem is not that such people can not present that specific evidence. The problem is that people making such claims can not present ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests the claims to be credible (let alone true).

The level of evidence you require comes close to that. People who have experienced paranormal events are in no doubt about what they have experienced and these stories keep recurring consistently. You have to experience these things yourself to arrive at the possible conclusion that there's something else there outside of what science presents - or indeed can test.

How is that not subjective

Also the problem of subjectivity is not just the witness, it is the narrative people put on what they witnessed after the event.

A witness to any event removes subjectivity, does it not ?

Again, you're assuming exaggeration on the part of the witness. Why so ? - the events can be dramatic enough, in many cases frightening and unwanted experiences too.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not speak to "better" or "smarter" at all. I have not seen anyone here saying they think that.

But certainly "more critical in their thinking" is something they very often are.

When some people, for example, take a few anecdotes of OBE as proof the mind can leave the brain and float around.......... and another group says "Well hang on that is a very interesting and testable claim and we can create some very reasonable ways to test it"............ then the latter group IS being more critical in their thinking.

And if group A feels, in the face of that useful and prudent move, somehow insulted or condescended then I suggest that is their problem and their problem alone. It is certainly not a failing on the part of Group B.

this isnt really a subject to get bogged with, particularly with someone like youself who sees themselves smarter than someone who claims to have had a paranormal experience. i agree with you that some people (in all camps) dont think critically, to assume anyone who has had a paranormal experience isnt a critical thinker is a bit silly.

Theres many kinds of paranormal experiences. Not all are OBEs, orbs, banshees or creaking floors.

railer201 wrote: »

That's assuming distortion and exaggeration, which is unnecessary in a lot of cases as the events are dramatic enough.

Well the assumption certainly is not required to carry my point, no. Which is why I added that part in brackets more as an aside than a part of the point. The mere reporting of such anecdote does not in any way validate the narratives placed on those anecdotes.

Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the experiences. I genuinely believe people HAD the experiences they claim to have had. I just do not buy into the narratives of what they then go on to claim, assume, or think those experiences mean.

But THAT such anecdotes are distorted and exaggerated sometimes is no assumption. It happens. And not just because of the person reporting the experience. There are influences from things like "Interviewer bias" which leads people to report and describe the experiences in a certain way. And Cultural Bias exists too where people parse and describe the experiences through the language and imagery (usually religious) of their own culture.

railer201 wrote: »

The thread title states that people who see the paranormal as being mentally ill, or hoaxers or at best fooling themselves (placebo) - no mention of the possibility of paranormal events being true. That's closed minded to me.

I think it dangerous to judge people on what they did NOT say rather than what they did. You are taking what was left out, and presuming to extrapolate it into a judgement. The OP also did not mention the possibility we are all in the Matrix and the experiences are glitches for example. There are any number of possibilities the OP did not put in the "title" of the thread. like Twitter, the title of the thread is necessarily brief.

I think your spin is in the wrong direction. I see the OP as listing the possibilities that currently have SOME level of substantiation for them, while leaving out the possibilities that do not. And that is not close minded at all. Just as soon as some of the paranormal narratives people hold come with any level of substantiation, then the OP can feel compelled to list them in his solution set.

railer201 wrote: »

The level of evidence you require comes close to that.

Yet I have not commented on the level of evidence I require. So I am concerned you might be making one up on my behalf and then deriding what you created.

I myself am open to ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that someone can offer me that lends even a modicum of credence to the narrative they hold to explain such anecdotes. The problem is not my level of requirements however........ it is the lack of anyone offering anything of the sort.

Rather, they have some anecdotes, they have a narrative they want to explain it with.......... and that is it. Nothing more is presented. And that is certainly not a failing on my part, or the part of my standards of evidence. It is a failing on a complete lack of anything being offered.

railer201 wrote: »

People who have experienced paranormal events are in no doubt about what they have experienced and these stories keep recurring consistently.

And, as I said above to someone else, I would rush to point out I have no doubt they experienced what they say they did either. Many people mistake me for doubting what I do NOT doubt. If someone says they saw things move that should not move, or saw a light on their operating table, or felt like they were outside their own body....... I genuinely believe their description of events and experiences.

What I DO doubt is the narratives they THEN implement to explain their experience.

But do NOT mistake me as doubting the experience itself. I take those on face value for the most part.

railer201 wrote: »

You have to experience these things yourself

I would merely warn you to not assume I haven't.

railer201 wrote: »

A witness to any event removes subjectivity, does it not ?

Nope. An anecdote is nothing more than a subjective description of something experienced.

railer201 wrote: »

Again, you're assuming exaggeration on the part of the witness.

Again, no I am not, as no such assumption is required to carry the points I have made. But THAT exaggeration and distortion often occurs in this realm is something we know already. And in actual studies on the subject we do our best to eliminate those variables as best we can.