"Ghosts" implausible.???

[Magical Realist]

No. I admit the observation / experience occurred but not as interpreted as paranormal.

Actually rarely if ever have I seen you admit the experience as it occurred. Usually you deny the experience in favor of a hoax or error or, as in Kitt's case, some sort of false memory syndrome.

It is not so much contradicting as expanding on what is considered to be paranormal.

Going from "paranormal = unexplained" to "unexplained does not = paranormal" isn't an expansion so much as a contradiction. But that's fine. I'm used to you changing your definition of words in the middle of a debate.

You need to be clear on what you are considering to be "paranormal": the observation or the explanation.
It is the explanations that are considered paranormal, not the observations themselves. Paranormal explanations are not supported by science.

I am not clear on the distinction between the explanation and the observation because there is in fact no clear distinction here. Science itself provides many examples of explanations/theories that also designate the phenomena itself. Evolution is a theory AND a process of nature. Gravity is a theory AND a force of nature. Even electricity is a theory AND a form of energy. That's what explanations do. They identify new phenomena and ascribe to it properties/traits that make it identifiable as such from then on. The term paranormal is no different. It is both a theory and class of phenomena that is identified by the theory.

But just because one considers an explanation to be paranormal does not mean that they think what was observed does not exist. This is a straw man that you continually raise and it is tiresome.

It is a point you contradictorily assume. You say we should never have to posit paranormal causes because there are always mundane factors that can be attributed instead. IOW, paranormal as an explanation logically cannot ever exist. But then you say a paranormal explanation DOES have validity in what it posits as the cause of the phenomenon. So which is it? Is paranormality EVER a valid explanation for a phenomena?

The scientific method does not imply a test for the cause, but establishing the cause might be one aim of such tests.

??? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself again.

Others might merely be to establish correlations, with the cause of each being deemed unknown.

Establishing correlations towards to goal of isolating the cause.

There is also no "knowledge of paranormal phenomena" - because for it to be knowledge it must be true. And that is the question that we are trying to answer.

We'll have to agree to disagree then here because in my 10 years of studying the phenomena I have observed abundant evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena such that we can indeed acquire knowledge about it.

While it is a valid method to assume characteristics and then test observations against those characteristics, one still does not show the cause of those characteristics as being "ghosts", for example. This is where rationality has to take over as to what we choose to believe or not believe as being the cause, or to simply say "we don't know" if that is more appropriate.

So again you deny the validity of a paranormal explanation de facto. All we can say is "we don't know" because afterall all causes are mundane in nature. That's a philosophical assumption on your part and not one based on science. There's probably no mundane cause for consciousness either, but we don't say consciousness as a transmundane phenomena doesn't exist.

But you seem to want people to accept the evidence for the paranormal, and yet you argue that the paranormal is not subject to the normal requirements for establishing that evidence and so should be given some special dispensation?

No..I simply insist that the paranormal as a field of study in itself not be dismissed from the outset in the name of some assumption of physical reductionism. I insist the evidence be examined objectively and compared with any alternative explanations that might fit better. That's all I'm asking.

Sure. Feel free to come up with something useful and workable in that regard.

The "you don't have an answer yet" fallacy. Once again, as if a phenomena has to have a scientific explanation to be accepted as real.

Indeed. It is in the explanation of causes, for example, where you depart from science into the realm of paranormal.

Then maybe the paranormal is not in the purview of science. Maybe we need new methodologies and heuristics to validate the paranormal, much as we have in other fields such as historical research, politics, psychology, and philosophy.

You can, but there is no scientific evidence for it, just anecdotal, or the willingness to jump on the paranormal bandwagon before eliminating all the more rational explanations... quite often due to some poor appreciation of what it means for something to be more rational.

Once again in all investigations I have observed the mundane explanations ARE debunked first before positing the paranormal as a cause. This is SOP for researchers in this field. And as far as the evidence being anecdotal--yes all evidence is anecdotal. You always take someone else's word for it that such and such happened. It's how we operate in human society.

There aren't an infinite, but there are usually far more than the paranormal investigator is willing to examine or perhaps capable of examining.
Until you get adequately robust testing, or even robust recording of the phenomena, such that all rational explanations can be negated, then you should not jump on the paranormal as an explanation.

Once again, the paranormal should never even exist as an explanation because we might always find a mundane explanation later on. That's ridiculous. Paranormality has it's own traits and properties that distinguish it every bit as much electricity or radiation distinguishes itself by. Ignoring these typicalities and just saying you don't know the cause isn't scientific. It's resigned ignorance. Science is all about inferring kinds of phenomena based on certain recurring patterns in how it behaves. That's how we know there's paranormal phenomena. Because it recurs in certain typical ways and expresses common characteristics.

No, what people have done is reinforced an irrational and unscientific explanation through lazy attempts at science, anecdotal evidence, and through a process that has no rigour and only ever takes seemingly positive results as its sample base.

Uh oh. Here we go again with the demoralization of paranormalists. They're irrational AND lazy, even though they're actually the only ones out in the field making the observations and recording the results. If you wanna see lazy, ask a skeptic to examine paranormal phenomena itself. You will never get him out of his armchair to test the phenomena himself. He is more content to pontificate and absolutize from the comfort of his own living room or website.

Under such a method you end up with "paranormal" almost by default. You hunt for positive results and make the findings fit the paranormal explanation you want.

No less than one only looking for mundane causes who just knows for a fact that the paranormal is never valid as an explanation. Physician heal thyself.

Or everyone who subsequently reperforms the experiment, or who rely on the fruits of the experiments, in whatever form that may be.

But even then we are only relying on the self-reports and anecdotes of those reperforming scientists. For all we know the experiment could be entirely hoaxed just to get a paper published or win a research grant. I'm sure that happens more often that we'd like to think.

But behind the acceptance of scientific reports is a robust method of data collection, as well as peer review, and some authority is quite often placed in that process.

All assuming the data presented hasn't been skewed by those performing the experiments. Once again, the acceptance of anecdote over direct experience.

No, what would not be disputed is that the chair moves, or that there were sounds, or that there is a light (or what appears to be a light) etc. By stating that it is "due to some invisible agent" is already making assumptions that are unwarranted.

That would be true if this were the first time we ever encountered such phenomena. Fortunately it isn't and we have a body of knowledge about how paranormal phenomena present themselves and how it typically happens. Hence the ability to posit it AS a phenomena, much as we do with evolution, gravity, or electricity.

Presumably because the other explanations were deemed to be more rational, requiring nothing but mundane causes rather than something for which no scientific evidence has ever been forthcoming. Could you prove that their explanations were all impossible?

I discounted each of the explanations based on the evidence. None held up. It's not a matter of proving their impossibility. Those would be unfalsifiable theories, and hence unscientific to begin.

Almost every location on earth is connected with death at some point in its history. But no, it is not done with every investigation. In fact the only investigations it is done would be the ones where they uncover the mundane cause relatively quickly. It would simply be too time consuming and expensive to negate all mundane causes, which is why it does not happen.

And which is why you have set the goal posts of proof beyond all possible reach. Even if the investigators rule out all logical mundane causes, which is something pretty easily done with moving objects, you will sit with arms crossed and grumble: "But there could always be some other mundane cause." That's essentially making proof of the paranormal impossible, which is something that would really make skeptics happy I bet.

But please show me one example of where they have exhausted all possible mundane causes, where there is no possible alternative other than "ghosts".

Examine the cases yourself. There's plenty posted on the over 2000 paranormal investigator websites one can peruse online.

Again, I didn't see the program, nor the detail of what they did or didn't do, so can't comment on that. But if they didn't show the existence or absence of the naturally occurring low frequencies, how does that lend any credence to "ghosts"? Are you claiming their lack of apparent rigour (if that is what they are guilty of) is support for the paranormal? Otherwise I wonder why you raised this example?

I cited this as example of the supposedly scientifically rigorous doing a very sloppy investigation of a reported phenomena. It goes to the myth that "scientific people" are somehow free from bias or of an agenda to prove that the paranormal can't exist. If they were more concerned with studying the phenomena itself, they would not so easily take their theory of LF soundwaves so seriously, particularly when there is no evidence the LF soundwaves even exist in the prison.

 

[Sarkus]

Actually rarely if ever have I seen you admit the experience as it occurred. Usually you deny the experience in favor of a hoax or error or, as in Kitt's case, some sort of false memory syndrome.

If you ever actually read my posts I have always accepted the experience happened, just not necessarily the interpretation applied to it. But once again you seem to conflate the two.

Going from "paranormal = unexplained" to "unexplained does not = paranormal" isn't an expansion so much as a contradiction. But that's fine. I'm used to you changing your definition of words in the middle of a debate.

Maybe you need to take a course in logic?
Just because all X are Y does not equate to all Y being X.

I am not clear on the distinction between the explanation and the observation because there is in fact no clear distinction here.

It is increasingly apparent that you are not clear of the distinction, yet it is rather key. By equating the two you make a priori assumptions.

Science itself provides many examples of explanations/theories that also designate the phenomena itself. Evolution is a theory AND a process of nature. Gravity is a theory AND a force of nature. Even electricity is a theory AND a form of energy. That's what explanations do. They identify new phenomena and ascribe to it properties/traits that make it identifiable as such from then on. The term paranormal is no different. It is both a theory and class of phenomena that is identified by the theory.

With the rather crucial difference being the lack of scientific theory to support the paranormal, and the lack of any scientific evidence to support the notion of the paranormal.
Your examples of gravity and evolution are valid precisely because they have such scientific evidence.
Perhaps if you can come up with a more rational explanation for gravity, or for evolution? With the paranormal there is generally a more rational explanation.

It is a point you contradictorily assume. You say we should never have to posit paranormal causes because there are always mundane factors that can be attributed instead. IOW, paranormal as an explanation logically cannot ever exist. But then you say a paranormal explanation DOES have validity in what it posits as the cause of the phenomenon. So which is it? Is paranormality EVER a valid explanation for a phenomena?

There is no contradiction. You just need to separate the observation from the interpretation. If you interpret something as paranormal and I disagree that it is paranormal, that in no way means I think the phenomenon observed does not exist. It means I disagree with your interpretation.
But since you seem to have admittedyour difficulty in separating the two (observation and interpretation) it is no wonder you struggle with this notion.

??? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself again.

Nope. You just need to understand logic. Just because "all X are Y" is false does not mea that some X cannot be Y.
Simplest really.

Establishing correlations towards to goal of isolating the cause.

Possibly, but not necessarily, in my view.

We'll have to agree to disagree then here because in my 10 years of studying the phenomena I have observed abundant evidence for the existence of paranormal phenomena such that we can indeed acquire knowledge about it.

Then post a paper about it. Show how we can garner knowledge about it. Describe the theory that can be tested to rationally support the notion.
Please.

So again you deny the validity of a paranormal explanation de facto. All we can say is "we don't know" because afterall all causes are mundane in nature. That's a philosophical assumption on your part and not one based on science. There's probably no mundane cause for consciousness either, but we don't say consciousness as a transmundane phenomena doesn't exist.

Again with the straw man of "don't agree with the interpretation therefore you think the observation doesn't exist"! Tiresome!
There may be no mundane cause for consciousness, but until we know for sure one way or the other I will go with "it is rational to assume that there is". But you tend to easily and quickly to jump on the "ghosts!" explanation.

No..I simply insist that the paranormal as a field of study in itself not be dismissed from the outset in the name of some assumption of physical reductionism. I insist the evidence be examined objectively and compared with any alternative explanations that might fit better. That's all I'm asking.

When it is presented it is examined objectively and either a rational explanation is put forward or they say they don't know (there being insufficient grounds for rationally concluding on any explanation). But you want to jump to an unsupported and what is to me (and undoubtedly others) an irrational conclusion.

The "you don't have an answer yet" fallacy. Once again, as if a phenomena has to have a scientific explanation to be accepted as real.

Once again you seem unable to separate observation from interpretation. We can accept the observation as real without accepting the interpretation as being correct, and not agreeing with the interpretation does not mean that we don't think the observation is real.

Then maybe the paranormal is not in the purview of science. Maybe we need new methodologies and heuristics to validate the paranormal, much as we have in other fields such as historical research, politics, psychology, and philosophy.

The paranormal isn't science or scientific. But it is also not useful, unlike the other disciplines you mention. But if it helps you to put it on a par with those disciplines then so be it: I have neither the interest nor enthusiasm to argue with you on just how ridiculous I find the notion.

Once again in all investigations I have observed the mundane explanations ARE debunked first before positing the paranormal as a cause. This is SOP for researchers in this field. And as far as the evidence being anecdotal--yes all evidence is anecdotal. You always take someone else's word for it that such and such happened. It's how we operate in human society.

If you think all mundane explanations have been debunked then you should be happy not to post the details of what and how they were debunked? Because excuse me if I don't take your anecdotal evidence as arbiter of the truth.

Once again, the paranormal should never even exist as an explanation because we might always find a mundane explanation later on. That's ridiculous. Paranormality has it's own traits and properties that distinguish it every bit as much electricity or radiation distinguishes itself by. Ignoring these typicalities and just saying you don't know the cause isn't scientific. It's resigned ignorance. Science is all about inferring kinds of phenomena based on certain recurring patterns in how it behaves. That's how we know there's paranormal phenomena. Because it recurs in certain typical ways and expresses common characteristics.

Then I look forward to the scientific papers on the matter as that is what you are now claiming of the paranormal... that it has support for it as much as electricity or radiation?

Uh oh. Here we go again with the demoralization of paranormalists. They're irrational AND lazy, even though they're actually the only ones out in the field making the observations and recording the results. If you wanna see lazy, ask a skeptic to examine paranormal phenomena itself. You will never get him out of his armchair to test the phenomena himself. He is more content to pontificate and absolutize from the comfort of his own living room or website.

That‘s also what they say about those who don't bother looking for unicorns, elves, fairies and the ilk. You're now heading down the "you cant prove me wrong" route. Hey ho.

No less than one only looking for mundane causes who just knows for a fact that the paranormal is never valid as an explanation. Physician heal thyself.

And thus the onus is on you to support your extraordinary claim in favour of the mundane. If those looking for the mundane find them, why should we favour a paranormal explanation??? And even if the mundane cannot be found, how can we be sure that every mundane possibility has been debunked? Aging, onus on you, as claimant, to support the rationality of your explanation.

But even then we are only relying on the self-reports and anecdotes of those reperforming scientists. For all we know the experiment could be entirely hoaxed just to get a paper published or win a research grant. I'm sure that happens more often that we'd like to think.

Hence peer review. And subsequently a theory is only accepted as fact when it has been repeated so often as for it not being true to be utterly remote. Otherwise it remains merely a supported theory, strongly or weakly supported.

All assuming the data presented hasn't been skewed by those performing the experiments. Once again, the acceptance of anecdote over direct experience.

Hence the need for peer review and repeatability. Your criticisms just work to highlight the robustness of the scientific method, a process through whichthe paranormal seemunable to transit with any success.

That would be true if this were the first time we ever encountered such phenomena. Fortunately it isn't and we have a body of knowledge about how paranormal phenomena present themselves and how it typically happens. Hence the ability to posit it AS a phenomena, much as we do with evolution, gravity, or electricity.

Then I look forward to the scientific paperson the matter, that are subject to Theroux and robustness of the scientific method.

I discounted each of the explanations based on the evidence. None held up. It's not a matter of proving their impossibility. Those would be unfalsifiable theories, and hence unscientific to begin.

So instead jump on the conclusion you want rather than a more rational, more mundane eplanation that, by your own admission, you cannot say were impossible to be the cause. And you eexpect people to accept your arguments... why, exactly?

And which is why you have set the goal posts of proof beyond all possible reach. Even if the investigators rule out all logical mundane causes, which is something pretty easily done with moving objects, you will sit with arms crossed and grumble: "But there could always be some other mundane cause." That's essentially making proof of the paranormal impossible, which is something that would really make skeptics happy I bet.

So now you criticise others for not making it easy for explanations to be accepted that would seem to defy the currently supported understanding of physics etc? You baffle me, MR.

Examine the cases yourself. There's plenty posted on the over 2000 paranormal investigator websites one can peruse online.

If I'm not wrong, you're making the claim (of paranormal) yet you require us to do your leg work???

I cited this as example of the supposedly scientifically rigorous doing a very sloppy investigation of a reported phenomena. It goes to the myth that "scientific people" are somehow free from bias or of an agenda to prove that the paranormal can't exist. If they were more concerned with studying the phenomena itself, they would not so easily take their theory of LF soundwaves so seriously, particularly when there is no evidence the LF soundwaves even exist in the prison.

If it was done for TV then they may have own agenda. It may also be merely a matter of editing that they didn't show the entire effort. By if your point is that not all scientists are robust in their endeavours then I agree. But it is somewhat of an irrelevant point in trying to justify acceptance of the paranormal.

 

[Magical Realist]

If you ever actually read my posts I have always accepted the experience happened, just not necessarily the interpretation applied to it. But once again you seem to conflate the two.

Then why did you dismiss Kitt's experience as a false memory? That's not accepting the experience at all. It is a blatant denial of the experience and an attempt to explain it away.

Maybe you need to take a course in logic?
Just because all X are Y does not equate to all Y being X.

No..you can't palm this off as some non-transposable operation of logic. You made two statements: "It is why it is called "paranormal" - i.e. it defies scientific explanation." and "But merely being unexplainable does not make it paranormal." You said the paranormal MEANS it defies explanation (ie. means in other words and not "for example"). Then you reverse that by saying that being unexplainable does NOT mean its paranormal. So you contradicted yourself.

It is increasingly apparent that you are not clear of the distinction, yet it is rather key. By equating the two you make a priori assumptions.

I told you already that the paranormal is not just an interpretation but a class of phenomena that has various defining traits. Why is this not sinking in?

With the rather crucial difference being the lack of scientific theory to support the paranormal, and the lack of any scientific evidence to support the notion of the paranormal.

Once again, we don't need a scientific theory to admit the existence of a phenomena. This will come later on, after we study the phenomena more and gather information about what its nature is.

Your examples of gravity and evolution are valid precisely because they have such scientific evidence.
Perhaps if you can come up with a more rational explanation for gravity, or for evolution? With the paranormal there is generally a more rational explanation.

LOL! Why would I wanna come up with another explanation for gravity or evolution? Why would you even ask that question?

There is no contradiction. You just need to separate the observation from the interpretation. If you interpret something as paranormal and I disagree that it is paranormal, that in no way means I think the phenomenon observed does not exist. It means I disagree with your interpretation.

Denying the existence of paranormal phenomena won't make it go away as much as you would hope it would. The phenomena occurs and will continue to occur to people all over the world while you sit with eyes closed denying it exists.

But since you seem to have admittedyour difficulty in separating the two (observation and interpretation) it is no wonder you struggle with this notion.

What part of "there is no clear distinction" don't you get?As I have repeatedly pointed out the phenomena exhibits typical characteristics meriting its status as paranormal. In other words, meriting its interpretation as being such. It's the same thing. Repeatedly denying this doesn't help your case.

Then post a paper about it. Show how we can garner knowledge about it. Describe the theory that can be tested to rationally support the notion.

LOL! Yeah, I'll get right on that...

Again with the straw man of "don't agree with the interpretation therefore you think the observation doesn't exist"! Tiresome!

Then quit pretending the two are different. The phenomena dictates being interpreted as paranormal by its very nature. Just as it would dictate being interpreted as mundane if it show THOSE traits.

There may be no mundane cause for consciousness, but until we know for sure one way or the other I will go with "it is rational to assume that there is".

So you admit there could be transmundane causes for a phenomena. Good, now we're getting somewhere.

When it is presented it is examined objectively and either a rational explanation is put forward or they say they don't know (there being insufficient grounds for rationally concluding on any explanation). But you want to jump to an unsupported and what is to me (and undoubtedly others) an irrational conclusion.

When a phenomena exhibits the same characteristics parnrmal phenomena would, we get to say it is paranormal. That's what is rational, because the theory fits the facts. Denying the very possibility of that phenomena is deliberate biased blindness. It's as simple as that.

Once again you seem unable to separate observation from interpretation. We can accept the observation as real without accepting the interpretation as being correct, and not agreeing with the interpretation does not mean that we don't think the observation is real.

You're repeating yourself. The phenomena is paranormal because it presents itself as such. It's a matter of comparing the facts of the case and weighing whether it shows the traits of paranormality.

The paranormal isn't science or scientific. But it is also not useful, unlike the other disciplines you mention. But if it helps you to put it on a par with those disciplines then so be it: I have neither the interest nor enthusiasm to argue with you on just how ridiculous I find the notion.

Once again lacking a scientific theory doesn't invalidate the phenomenon. We know it happens based on investigations and anecdotal evidence. The fact that there's no scientific explanation doesn't effect its reality in the least.

If you think all mundane explanations have been debunked then you should be happy not to post the details of what and how they were debunked? Because excuse me if I don't take your anecdotal evidence as arbiter of the truth.

I'm not concerned to convince you of anything. You can't even admit a paranormal phenomenon is possible much less exists. So why would I waste my efforts showing you that it does. You'll just say, "Nope, could still be something mundane" and so continue to ignore it.

Then I look forward to the scientific papers on the matter as that is what you are now claiming of the paranormal... that it has support for it as much as electricity or radiation?

You have access the same evidence I have. We don't need scientific papers to prove the paranormal exists. The evidence can be examined on an website you care to visit.

That‘s also what they say about those who don't bother looking for unicorns, elves, fairies and the ilk. You're now heading down the "you cant prove me wrong" route. Hey ho.

You're making the claim paranormal phenomena can't exist. Why are you claiming something that's clearly unsupportable?

And thus the onus is on you to support your extraordinary claim in favour of the mundane. If those looking for the mundane find them, why should we favour a paranormal explanation??? And even if the mundane cannot be found, how can we be sure that every mundane possibility has been debunked? Aging, onus on you, as claimant, to support the rationality of your explanation.

I've posted over 20 thread in the section over the past year or so supporting my claim. So I've done my part. If you still need more evidence, go visit any of the thousands of paranormal websites providing such. It's not my job to fill the void of ignorance you have about this field of research.

Hence peer review. And subsequently a theory is only accepted as fact when it has been repeated so often as for it not being true to be utterly remote. Otherwise it remains merely a supported theory, strongly or weakly supported.

You still don't get it. The peers also self-report their results. Thus they too are giving anecdotal evidence of their own experiments. And the scientific world accepts the results AS presented, no question. Once again, all evidence is anecdotal.

Hence the need for peer review and repeatability. Your criticisms just work to highlight the robustness of the scientific method, a process through whichthe paranormal seemunable to transit with any success.

There comes a point again that someone's word is simply taken as reliable. The papers published in journals are anecdotes that are confirmed or not by further papers. And so on thru the supposed objective process of the scientific method.

Then I look forward to the scientific paperson the matter, that are subject to Theroux and robustness of the scientific method.

You're disintegrating into illegibility. Go take a break. Walk around outside. Breathe deeply. Relax.

So instead jump on the conclusion you want rather than a more rational, more mundane eplanation that, by your own admission, you cannot say were impossible to be the cause. And you eexpect people to accept your arguments... why, exactly?

The paranormal IS the more rational explanation when the observations warrant it. There comes a point when you run out of mundane possibilities and just decide in favor of what is evident. The phenomena was paranormal caused.

you criticise others for not making it easy for explanations to be accepted that would seem to defy the currently supported understanding of physics etc? You baffle me, MR.

Knowing their bias I don't expect anything less than denials and excuses not to examine the evidence. That why we call skeptics skeptics, because they have deciding to never be convinced by any evidence for the paranormal.

not wrong, you're making the claim (of paranormal) yet you require us to do your leg work???

If you require evidence or information you need to do your own legwork. But then we know you won't really do that will you?Hence you sit inside your safe little physicalist bubble protected from any threat of there being more to reality than just that.

 

[Kittamaru]

MR - the thing is, if you are making the claim that something is paranormal, then you are required to provide evidence to back it up.

Likewise, those claiming it is NOT paranormal need to provide evidence to back their claims.

 

[Enmos]

Likewise, those claiming it is NOT paranormal need to provide evidence to back their claims.

Sorry, but... huh??

 

[Magical Realist]

thing is, if you are making the claim that something is paranormal, then you are required to provide evidence to back it up.

That's what I have done here. Provided evidence based on photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts of paranormal. I have around 20 threads in this subforum dealing with this issue. But since I was banned fortrolling the last time I posted pics of ghosts, I will not risk being permabanned by Emnos for doing the same thing. Skeptics are adults. They know how to search the web. If they need evidence, they know where to look.

 

[Sarkus]

Then why did you dismiss Kitt's experience as a false memory? That's not accepting the experience at all. It is a blatant denial of the experience and an attempt to explain it away.

I've never said the experience never happened. Perhaps you are confusing the notion of memory being flawed / inaccurate with the notion of it not happening. Yes, not happening in the way remembered but that does not mean the experience never happened.

I told you already that the paranormal is not just an interpretation but a class of phenomena that has various defining traits. Why is this not sinking in?

And what do you not comprehend about the distinction between what the reality is and what the interpretation is. Just because you interpret something as a paranormal phenomena does not mean that it is. And to assume that it is is nothing but an a priori assumption.

Once again, we don't need a scientific theory to admit the existence of a phenomena. This will come later on, after we study the phenomena more and gather information about what its nature is.

But as soon as you interpret it as a paranormal phenomena rather than just an "unknown" phenomena you are making claims that you have no scientific, and dare I say it no rational support for.
You do not seem to comprehend how the mere classification of the phenomena as paranormal is a claim, and it is distinct from the phenomena itself.

LOL! Why would I wanna come up with another explanation for gravity or evolution? Why would you even ask that question?

Well, you want to come up with non-mundane explanations for what you deem the paranormal, it's curious as to where and why you draw lines where you do.

Denying the existence of paranormal phenomena won't make it go away as much as you would hope it would. The phenomena occurs and will continue to occur to people all over the world while you sit with eyes closed denying it exists.

No, the same phenomena might occur, but that does not mean it is a paranormal phenomena. You are again assuming that it is paranormal, and doing so without any evidentiary support. You have defined a phenomena as paranormal without adequate investigation and elimination of the mundane, and then claim each time that the same phenomena (or at least what is interpreted as the same phenomena) occurs you claim that it is evidence of the paranormal. Spot the flaw(s) yet?

What part of "there is no clear distinction" don't you get?As I have repeatedly pointed out the phenomena exhibits typical characteristics meriting its status as paranormal. In other words, meriting its interpretation as being such. It's the same thing. Repeatedly denying this doesn't help your case.

:wallbang:
So I define my dog as paranormal, and every time I see my dog I can claim it is a paranormal phenomena?
Or would you concur that the classification as paranormal at the outset is flawed? But following your line of argument you would then say that I'm denying my dog's existence by refuting the paranormal nature of the phenomena! Go figure!
All you are describing is a circle of reinforcing a flawed classification.

LOL! Yeah, I'll get right on that...

So you can't support your claims? Surprising.

Then quit pretending the two are are different. The phenomena dictates being interpreted as paranormal by its very nature. Just as it would dictate being interpreted as mundane if it show THOSE traits.

So if I saw what I thought was a "ghost", and it fit the characteristics of being considered paranormal, then you would say that it IS a paranormal phenomena, and that the "paranormal" is not an interpretation but what it actually IS?
And when that "ghost" is shown to be of mundane origin, it is not merely our interpretation of the phenomena that changes but the actually phenomena itself??
Again - do you not see the flaw in your thinking here?

So you admit there could be transmundane causes for a phenomena. Good, now we're getting somewhere.

There could be... and as soon as you show me the evidence for it, and how it can not possibly be of mundane cause, I'll be right beside you waving the "paranormal" banner.

When a phenomena exhibits the same characters as a paranormal phenomena would, we get to say it is paranormal. That's what is rational, because the theory fits the facts. Denying the very possibility of that phenomena is deliberate biased blindness. It's as simple as that.

There is no theory... at least no scientific theory. And no evidence supporting such a theory.
And the irrationality is in assigning characteristics to a phenomena without adequate rigour in the first place. Ever since then it is just a continual reinforcement of the flaw/irrationality through bias interpretation of subsequent observations.

You're repeating yourself. The phenomena is paranormal because it presents itself as such. It's a matter of comparing the facts of the case and weighing whether it shows the traits of paranormality.

See above.

Once again lacking a scientific theory doesn't invalidate the phenomenon. We know it happens based on investigations and anecdotal evidence. The fact that there's no scientific explanation doesn't effect its reality in the least.

It doesn't invalidate the phenomena, and I have never said it does - it only means that there is no reason to accept the interpretation as "paranormal".
Again, you can't seem to separate the phenomena from the interpretation.

I'm not concerned to convince you of anything. You can't even admit a paranormal phenomenon is possible much less exists. So why would I waste my efforts showing you that it does. You'll just say, "Nope, could still be something mundane" and so continue to ignore it.

And you can't show me how it could not possibly be something mundane? Yet you are still willing to jump on the "it's paranormal" bandwagon? And you consider yourself rational in this regard?

You have access the same evidence I have. We don't need scientific papers to prove the paranormal exists. The evidence can be examined on an website you care to visit.

Ah yes, the "I'm not going to support my claim - you show me I'm wrong!" argument.

You're making the claim paranormal phenomena can't exist. Why are you claiming something that's clearly unsupportable?

I'm not making any such claim. The burden of proof is on you for claiming something does exist.

I've posted over 20 thread in the section over the past year or so supporting my claim. So I've done my part. If you still need more evidence, go visit any of the thousands of paranormal websites providing such. It's not my job to fill the void of ignorance you have about this field of research.

You've posted stuff, yes, and every one of those could be caused by the mundane. Or have you shown in each of those how you can discount the mundane entirely?

You still don't get it. The peers also self-report their results. Thus they too are giving anecdotal evidence of their own experiments. And the scientific world accepts the results AS presented, no question. Once again, all evidence is anecdotal.

So the only evidence you have for gravity is anecdotal?
The only evidence you have for the existence of the electron is anecdotal?

There comes a point again that someone's word is simply taken as reliable. The papers published in journals are anecdotes that are confirmed or not by further papers. And so on thru the supposed objective process of the scientific method.

They are not confirmed by other papers but by the actual experimentation performed. Noone accepts the papers in and of themselves, but by the evidence (including the repeatability) supporting the paper and the success of outcome as theorised / predicted if and when they come to rely on that theory in their own work.
Your understanding and view of this area is somewhat naive.

You're disintegrating into illegibility. Go take a break. Walk around outside. Breathe deeply. Relax.

Damn predictive text on my phone! Let me try again:
"Then I look forward to the scientific papers on the matter, that are subject to the rigour and robustness of the scientific method."

The paranormal IS the more rational explanation when the observations warrant it. There comes a point when you run out of mundane possibilities and just decide in favor of what is evident. The phenomena was paranormal caused.

And here you describe the laziness of those who believe in the paranormal. Lazy thinking to a tee.
When you want to conclude that something is not yet evidenced by science and goes against current scientific understanding you need to be able to support your conclusion with as much, if not more, weight than would make the "mundane" rational. And there is always the question: is it more likely that there is an unknown mundane explanation, or is it more likely to be something that defies the current understanding of science.

Knowing their bias I don't expect anything less than denials and excuses not to examine the evidence. That why we call skeptics skeptics, because they have deciding to never be convinced by any evidence for the paranormal.

If you require evidence or information you need to do your own legwork. But then we know you won't really do that will you?Hence you sit inside your safe little physicalist bubble protected from any threat of there being more to reality than just that.

You make the claim, you support it. That's generally how things work. You claim the paranormal exists. Yet you want others to show you to be correct because you won't?
Why does that not really surprise me.
Anyhoo - I didn't mean to make this so long - next time I'll condense.

 

[Kittamaru]

Sorry, but... huh??

That is my take on it anyway - if someone is claiming something as false, they must be able to explain why - not simply say "That's stupid and you're a poo-poo head for thinking like that."

 

[Enmos]

That is my take on it anyway - if someone is claiming something as false, they must be able to explain why - not simply say "That's stupid and you're a poo-poo head for thinking like that."

MR has been making claims for a while now. And all the while has refused to back them up despite the innumerable requests that he do so.
Even has the audicity to demand evidence from everyone else. Textbook troll.
Anyway, since he does not back up his claims, while continuing to make them, I say we can savely call bullshit.

 

[Enmos]

I will not risk being permabanned by Emnos for doing the same thing.

You could have fooled me. You are still doing it. And I'm not talking about posting ghost pics; you were never banned for that (so you can stop lying about it).

 

[Kittamaru]

MR has been making claims for a while now. And all the while has refused to back them up despite the innumerable requests that he do so.
Even has the audicity to demand evidence from everyone else. Textbook troll.
Anyway, since he does not back up his claims, while continuing to make them, I say we can savely call bullshit.

Hence why I told him that he does, in fact, need to provide evidence for his claims

 

[Enmos]

Hence why I told him that he does, in fact, need to provide evidence for his claims

I know
But my actual point was made in the last sentence.

 

[Magical Realist]

You could have fooled me. You are still doing it. And I'm not talking about posting ghost pics; you were never banned for that (so you can stop lying about it).

What ARE you talking about then? Or are you here just to troll again and insult me as a liar?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Mods and Members.
Could you moderate your language?
Calling people "Trolls" and "Liars" is not respectful.

 

[Stryder]

Mods and Members.
Could you moderate your language?
Calling people "Trolls" and "Liars" is not respectful.

I suppose we could moderate it all to puppies

 

[birch]

Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me.

Lol. He knew it was a strange world.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is my take on it anyway - if someone is claiming something as false, they must be able to explain why - not simply say "That's stupid and you're a poo-poo head for thinking like that."

No one can or should claim the experience is false. You cannot prove a negative such as this.

The observer did experience something. It's a question of what they experienced and if there's any paranormal involvement.

Our poster is surely saying that the observer's paranormal interpretation is more plausibly false.

We know for a fact that people do experience things and think they're real. It is an independently verifiable, 3rd-party observation that can be repeated under controlled conditions, so there's no doubt.
The same cannot be said about paranormal phenomena.

So the issue becomes, which is the more plausible explanation? A explanation that is based on known behavior? Or an explanation that requires a heretofore unverifiable set of paranormal phenomena?