Paranormal feelings

[Michael 345]

I guess my point is that if the researchers all come out of the experiment stumped by what is causing the drainage of the batteries, would they simply say ''I don't know,'

Nope

Que MR from Stage LEFT

It's Little Green Men
Aliens from another dimension
Lots souls with unrequited love
Etc
Etc

EDIT

Wrote the above before I read MR above

Convenient how - conditions might not be the same - one time giggle other time a bang - and no predictability

Dame the paranormal, hold still so science can get a good look at you

 

[wegs]

Well, the result of that study would be that "Place X known for ghosts causes a reduction of charge in capacitors." That's an important bit of science. Once that's established, then the next step is to figure out how it's happening. Is it ionization between the plates? Does that mean that ghosts cause reduced ionization potentials? Because if that was true, you'd suddenly have a very accurate way of measuring ghosts. And once you could do _that_ you could start understanding them.

Sort of, yes. But there's a big caveat there. Once it is understood, it's not paranormal any more. If ghosts exist because of X, then once you understand X they are part of science, not the supernatural.

But suppose you rule out all material possibilities? Let's say that the researchers are truly stumped at the end of the experiment, what would their next step be? To simply throw up their hands and say ''I don't know,'' or would they be open to the idea of paranormal activity, at that point?

I'd want to eliminate bias going into the experiment. Does this make sense what I'm asking?

Let me say, I don't have a thing for ghosts lol But, I wonder at what point, would evidence be sufficient enough for skeptics?

 

[billvon]

But suppose you rule out all material possibilities? Let's say that the researchers are truly stumped at the end of the experiment, what would their next step be?

Well, an experiment can only disprove or prove something. So they wouldn't be stumped at the end of the experiment - they would say "yes, the ghost caused a discharge" or "no, it didn't."

The next step would be to create another hypothesis and test that. "Ghosts discharge capacitors by emitting ionizing radiation that causes leakage currents." Then they test for that. Again, they will see that or they won't.

After several such trials they will have a good handle on being able to describe the phenomenon of ghosts (or will have demonstrated that no such phenomenon exists.)

To simply throw up their hands and say ''I don't know,'' or would they be open to the idea of paranormal activity, at that point?

But again - if ionizing radiation is causing a discharge, that's not paranormal - that's science. It's how fluorescent light work, and they certainly aren't paranormal.

I'd want to eliminate bias going into the experiment. Does this make sense what I'm asking?

You can't - not in ghost research, not in medical research, not in any science. (You think screening for paranormal bias is hard? Try finding medical researchers who don't want to cure cancer!)

But by designing the experiment right, the bias doesn't affect the outcome.

Let me say, I don't have a thing for ghosts lol But, I wonder at what point, would evidence be sufficient enough for skeptics?

Repeatable results from controlled tests. That's the standard for science.

 

[wegs]

“But by designing the-experiment right, the bias doesn’t affect the outcome.”

I’m not sure I believe that, but okay. If skeptics are involved in the experiment, they will be more interested in debunking the notion that ghosts are causing the issue, over finding evidence to possibly support it.

 

[Seattle]

“But by designing the-experiment right, the bias doesn’t affect the outcome.”

I’m not sure I believe that, but okay. If skeptics are involved in the experiment, they will be more interested in debunking the notion that ghosts are causing the issue, over finding evidence to possibly support it.

By that logic, "If believers are involved in the experiment, they will be more interested in finding evidence that supports it, over debunking the notion."

That's why a double blind test is nice. Neither those running the test nor those participating in the test know what the test is about (for example).

As was pointed out, if the test is property designed it doesn't matter what the bias of the designers is. Design a test so that biased researchers on both sides of the issue can't tell what the test designer bias was.

Keep in mind that any researcher would love to confirm results leading to something new.

I don't think there are any unicorns but if I could design a test for unicorns and possibly confirm that they do exist I would love to do that. Who wouldn't?

 

[Michael 345]

Let's say that the researchers are truly stumped at the end of the experiment, what would their next step be? To simply throw up their hands and say ''I don't know,'' or would they be open to the idea of paranormal activity, at that point?

My guess?

Scientists would rather smash their last test tube , but before that say "I don't know" before saying "Paranormal"

Currently there are any number of unknowns

Some are unknowns scientists know about (the workings of graviiy) and I'm sure unknowns scientists don't know about

Some unknowns (before the Big Bang) may forever be unknowable

But unknowable IS UNKNOWABLE

So explain how unknowable became god did it

My take? imagination from storytelling which gained credence from repetition and repetition leads to "there must be something in it" leads to con artist "how can I use this magic cow pat idea?" (YES I have prejudged)

over finding evidence to possibly support it.

Not so. Think Bill Gates is rich? Two days after proving ghost are real you would pass him at a gallop

 

[Magical Realist]

After several such trials they will have a good handle on being able to describe the phenomenon of ghosts (or will have demonstrated that no such phenomenon exists.)

Not getting a result such as a discharged battery wouldn't demonstrate that the paranormal doesn't exist. It would only mean that at that time a ghost either wasn't present or that it didn't care to discharge the battery for whatever reason. We are not iow dealing with a physical process that consistently follows scientific laws. We are dealing with a conscious entity whose presence and/or behavior at anytime is unpredictable and is manifested in any number of different ways.

 

[Michael 345]

We are not iow dealing with a physical process that consistently follows scientific laws. We are dealing with a conscious entity whose presence and/or behavior at anytime is unpredictable and is manifested in any number of different ways.

And EXACTLY how do you KNOW that?



Spoiler

I already know but very interested in YOUR answer

 

[Magical Realist]

And EXACTLY how do you KNOW that?

It pretty much goes along with the whole concept of ghosts, doesn't it?

 

[Michael 345]

It pretty much goes along with the whole concept of ghosts, doesn't it?

So let's look at what choices are available once all the double blind experiments have been done on the -

I pick - ghost drain batteries - but feel free to insert own whatever experiment you wish

The results from - pick a number - experiments show no difference above what would be expected, and what has been observed, in numerous other experiments of this nature ie you could label any of the three sets of data with any of the other two designations or even ask experts in their respective fields, which set of data was

• from the haunted house, which
• from the non haunted house, and which
• from the non designated house

You could even swap the designation of each house around along with participants and ghost hunter sound / film / special effects crews

I've numerous other flexibility ways to design a testing operation

Any it's all been performed over a year and results are in

Zero - ie no results show ghost drain batteries

Michael's conclusion - no ghost

Other conclusion - ghost exist but were not interested in taking part in any of the experiments

Did I get the last two paragraphs correct?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

lmao I know. Thought you'd find that one funny.

Wegs, you might enjoy this :
https://austin.curbed.com/maps/austin-haunted-places-to-go-map
"The Driskill Hotel
The Driskill is probably Austin's most famous haunted space, and is populated by so many ghostly presences that staff has a handout on them for guests. They include its namesake, Civil War Colonel Jesse Driskill, who had the place built and then promptly lost it in a card game, and Peter J. Lawless, who lived in the hotel from 1886 until 1916 (including during renovations); he can sometimes be seen checking his pocket watch when the elevator doors of the fifth floor on the hotel’s Historic Side open.
Musician Annie Lennox reportedly had supernatural help with choosing an outfit to perform in when she was on tour and stayed in the hotel, and Johnette Napolitano’s song “Ghost of a Texas Ladies Man” is supposedly about this encounter."
https://austin.curbed.com/maps/austin-haunted-places-to-go-map

Johnette Napolitano/Concrete Blonde song “Ghost of a Texas Ladies Man”

 

[billvon]

I’m not sure I believe that, but okay. If skeptics are involved in the experiment, they will be more interested in debunking the notion that ghosts are causing the issue, over finding evidence to possibly support it.

Right. But let's say the skeptics end up in the second control group - the group with fake ghosts and "fake capacitors" that discharge all the time. If they are so biased that they are willing to fudge the data, they will say "we saw no discharge" - thus invalidating the experiment.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If they are so biased that they are willing to fudge the data, they will say "we saw no discharge" - thus invalidating the experiment.

At anuther forum a guy made the obvous pont that if you tied a string to the handle of a bucket an swung the bucket overhead in a circle… then let go of the string the bucket woud not rotate as it flew away… it woud fly away wit the buckets handle nearest to you an the bottom of the bucket always farthest from you befor it hit finaly the ground. Seemed to make sinse to me but i did the experiment just to prove it.!!!

So i was very skeptical that the bucket woud rotate but it did. I was amazed an reported that we had both been wrong.!!!
He said i must have done somptin wrong… an refused to try the experiment himself.!!!

 

[Michael 345]

So i was very skeptical that the bucket woud rotate but it did

If YOU were swinging the bucket you would get a variation in bucket respond

You need a regulated mechanical machine able to put the same input to the bucket each time

You are not a regulated mechanical machine

 

[wegs]

Not getting a result such as a discharged battery wouldn't demonstrate that the paranormal doesn't exist. It would only mean that at that time a ghost either wasn't present or that it didn't care to discharge the battery for whatever reason. We are not iow dealing with a physical process that consistently follows scientific laws. We are dealing with a conscious entity whose presence and/or behavior at anytime is unpredictable and is manifested in any number of different ways.

Agree. Well said. It's not that I'm dismissing billvon's or Seattle's points, but as you state here, paranormal activity most likely can't be proven through strictly scientific methods. One of the ways to learn about consciousness (from a scientific approach) is to evaluate human experiences, which isn't unlike interviews with people claiming to have experienced ghostly encounters. (But, scientists usually don't believe their stories.)

So, I guess when it comes to consciousness, asking humans about their experiences makes sense, but when it comes to ghosts, scientists don't trust ''eye witness accounts'' from claimants. Hmm.

 

[wegs]

Right. But let's say the skeptics end up in the second control group - the group with fake ghosts and "fake capacitors" that discharge all the time. If they are so biased that they are willing to fudge the data, they will say "we saw no discharge" - thus invalidating the experiment.

Only if they know that the experiment is designed to prove ghosts, no?

**trying to understand**

 

[wegs]

Wegs, you might enjoy this :
https://austin.curbed.com/maps/austin-haunted-places-to-go-map
"The Driskill Hotel
The Driskill is probably Austin's most famous haunted space, and is populated by so many ghostly presences that staff has a handout on them for guests. They include its namesake, Civil War Colonel Jesse Driskill, who had the place built and then promptly lost it in a card game, and Peter J. Lawless, who lived in the hotel from 1886 until 1916 (including during renovations); he can sometimes be seen checking his pocket watch when the elevator doors of the fifth floor on the hotel’s Historic Side open.
Musician Annie Lennox reportedly had supernatural help with choosing an outfit to perform in when she was on tour and stayed in the hotel, and Johnette Napolitano’s song “Ghost of a Texas Ladies Man” is supposedly about this encounter."
https://austin.curbed.com/maps/austin-haunted-places-to-go-map

Johnette Napolitano/Concrete Blonde song “Ghost of a Texas Ladies Man”

That's interesting! I'll say this, I'm not sold on hauntings and such mainly because...why do ghosts exist? I'm not so much interested in the how (although, that's curious), but the why. Are they ''spirits'' trapped between worlds? If so, why? Why aren't all the dead haunting the earth, rather than only a select few? Sort of like trying to solve a murder mystery, I'm always more intrigued by the why, than the how.

 

[Seattle]

Agree. Well said. It's not that I'm dismissing billvon's or Seattle's points, but as you state here, paranormal activity most likely can't be proven through strictly scientific methods. One of the ways to learn about consciousness (from a scientific approach) is to evaluate human experiences, which isn't unlike interviews with people claiming to have experienced ghostly encounters. (But, scientists usually don't believe their stories.)

So, I guess when it comes to consciousness, asking humans about their experiences makes sense, but when it comes to ghosts, scientists don't trust ''eye witness accounts'' from claimants. Hmm.

They don't doubt their experiences. It's the conclusions.

You could tell me about bad experiences with your father (hypothetical) and I would believe that you felt that way. If you told me that your father hated you and that's why you had a curfew I wouldn't just take your word on that, nor should I.

If you see a curtain move and sometimes you realize it is the wind and sometimes you realize it only happens when you just woke up from a dream and sometimes it is definitely a ghost...what am I supposed to do?

It's not about whether I believe you or not. It either is a ghost or it's not a ghost and it doesn't matter if I believe in ghosts or not. If there are ghosts they are there whether I believe in them or not.

Conversely, if there are no ghosts, they don't become real just because someone believes in them.

Everyone seems to realize that love exists. Everyone doesn't accept that ghosts, Gods, unicorns, Big Foot, etc. exists. There is a distinction here.

We are of the natural world. Everything we experience is of the natural world in one way or another so to say that "science" can't test things because they are not of the natural world it really just a cop out. If something isn't of the natural world you can't know of it either.

 

[wegs]

They don't doubt their experiences. It's the conclusions.

You could tell me about bad experiences with your father (hypothetical) and I would believe that you felt that way. If you told me that your father hated you and that's why you had a curfew I wouldn't just take your word on that, nor should I.

If you see a curtain move and sometimes you realize it is the wind and sometimes you realize it only happens when you just woke up from a dream and sometimes it is definitely a ghost...what am I supposed to do?

It's not about whether I believe you or not. It either is a ghost or it's not a ghost it and doesn't matter if I believe in ghosts or not. If there are ghosts they are there whether I believe in them or not.

Conversely, if there are no ghosts, they don't become real just because someone believes in them.

Everyone seems to realize that love exists. Everyone doesn't accept that ghosts, Gods, unicorns, Big Foot, etc. exists. There is a distinction here.

Good points. Although, I've known a few who don't believe in love.

Your points here are clearer to me now, so thanks for not giving up lol

Skeptics say that those who believe in ghosts...want to believe. But, the idea of paranormal activity, if we really stop to imagine it...is pretty unsettling. I've rarely heard a positive, uplifting ghost story. They're usually scary tales depicting the worst of scenarios.

https://www.livescience.com/why-some-people-love-being-scared.html

 

[cluelusshusbund]

If YOU were swinging the bucket you would get a variation in bucket respond

You need a regulated mechanical machine able to put the same input to the bucket each time

You are not a regulated mechanical machine

So if the bucket was swung by a regulated mechanical machine... woud the bucket rotate when the string was released