Sounds of ghosts from abandoned insane asylum

[wegs]

You sound like Balerion now. If someone researches the paranormal and confirms it, they are automatically suspect due to mainstream science denying the very possibility of the phenomena. The history of science is filled with examples of new phenomena being dismissed by mainstream science. One example is the guy who theorized continental drift theory. He was ridiculed for a long time until years later it was proven to be true. When your talking mainstream opinion, you're talking major bias in favor of the status quo and only what has been discovered so far. Research that upsets that applecart tends to be rejected and mocked. Like I said, if you want a future career in science, you'd better conform to the scientific establishment of what can or can't be researched or you can count on a job flipp'n burgers for the rest of your life.

Well, I’m definitely open minded to it (and I have no 'bias' lol), and I think that the people who spend a lot of time, whether as a living or as a hobby ‘researching’ the paranormal, have some convincing claims. But, CONCLUSIVE evidence can only be settled by a scientific process. (and testing)

I’m not open minded to the idea of Big Foot existing, though. However, I’ll take a gander at your thread.

 

[Mazulu]

Well, I’m definitely open minded to it (and I have no 'bias' lol), and I think that the people who spend a lot of time, whether as a living or as a hobby ‘researching’ the paranormal, have some convincing claims. But, CONCLUSIVE evidence can only be settled by a scientific process. (and testing)

I’m not open minded to the idea of Big Foot existing, though. However, I’ll take a gander at your thread.

Let's see, spending your time doing something that brings you happiness and a sense of wonder about the world? Yeah, I think it's time well spent.

 

[wegs]

Let's see, spending your time doing something that brings you happiness and a sense of wonder about the world? Yeah, I think it's time well spent.

As long as people are not purposely setting out to fool others, especially for the purpose of gaining fame and money, I don’t have any qualms with people ‘researching’ the paranormal. I’m open to the possibility of the paranormal, but there are so many charlatans out there, unfortunately.

 

[Mazulu]

As long as people are not purposely setting out to fool others, especially for the purpose of gaining fame and money, I don’t have any qualms with people ‘researching’ the paranormal. I’m open to the possibility of the paranormal, but there are so many charlatans out there, unfortunately.

Actually, it would be nice to see a better supply of haunted houses and ghostly apparitions. There is a way to do it.

 

[spidergoat]

Actually, it would be nice to see a better supply of haunted houses and ghostly apparitions. There is a way to do it.

Murdering people suddenly in a spooky place?

 

[Magical Realist]

I wager that for the most part, the standards of paranormal researchers aren't as rigorous as they should be if they were to be taken seriously. They completely ignore what can be considered legitimate evidence in science. It's frankly not science they are doing. And the field is plagued by frauds and attention seekers.

Detectives solve crimes. Not scientists. Hunters kill deer. Not scientists. Fisherman catch fish. Not scientists. Goldhunters find gold. Not scientists. I don't think certain fields lend themselves to the exacting standards and rigor of hard science. Not everything is perfectly quantitative or replicable, especially when dealing with living entities. Alot depends on experience, heuristics, serendipity, and gut intuitions. Things you're not gonna find in a science textbook.

 

[spidergoat]

Detectives solve crimes. Not scientists. Hunters kill deer. Not scientists. Fisherman catch fish. Not scientists. Goldhunters find gold. Not scientists. I don't think certain fields lend themselves to the exacting standards and rigor of hard science. Not everything is perfectly quantitative or replicable, especially when dealing with living entities. Alot depends on experience, heuristics, serendipity, and gut intuitions. Things you're not gonna find in a science textbook.

So don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Magical Realist]

So don't expect to be taken seriously.

And yet the investigations continue and the evidence keeps piling up. Guess we don't really need "scientists" to take it seriously.

 

[spidergoat]

And yet the investigations continue and the evidence keeps piling up. Guess we don't really need "scientists" to take it seriously.

If they aren't using the rigorous standards of science, that evidence is worthless except to other believers.

 

[Magical Realist]

If they aren't using the rigorous standards of science, that evidence is worthless except to other believers.

No it isn't worthless. Like I said, many fields find evidence that wouldn't pass scientific standards and yet are still totally successful in using it to hunt down whatever they're looking for. First hand experience trumps science every time.

 

[spidergoat]

No it isn't worthless. Like I said, many fields find evidence that wouldn't pass scientific standards and yet are still totally successful in using it to hunt down whatever they're looking for. First hand experience trumps science every time.

Up to a point. But if you want to verify that the evidence means what you think it means, you can't just rely on anecdotal reports. For instance, a ghost must communicate something to a researcher that no one could have known otherwise. For instance, who killed them and how, where they are buried, where is the murder weapon. I can imagine that some of them would know they were poisoned or murdered when the authorities thought it was a natural death. Ghosts could solve a lot of cold cases.

 

[Mazulu]

Murdering people suddenly in a spooky place?

No, I was thinking about the effect that electromagnetic fields might have on the brain. Take a nice creapy estate and add some statues and other amenities to make it creapier. Give it a good background story. Then use some kind of electromagnetic field generator to induce hallucinations in the brain. Then, you'll get people to have their own ghost experiences.

 

[Magical Realist]

Up to a point. But if you want to verify that the evidence means what you think it means, you can't just rely on anecdotal reports. For instance, a ghost must communicate something to a researcher that no one could have known otherwise. For instance, who killed them and how, where they are buried, where is the murder weapon. I can imagine that some of them would know they were poisoned or murdered when the authorities thought it was a natural death. Ghosts could solve a lot of cold cases.

I'm not so sure it is necessary to establish the ghost's identity to prove his/her existence. In the very least, communicating with a disembodied consciousness is enough to establish the reality of it. Communications with these beings is so transient and iffy you're lucky if you illicit an intelligent response at all much less the biographical details of their life. As for anecdotal evidence, it's entirely reliable in other fields. A criminal may be narrowed down by interviewing people who know him. Or everyone says there's this good fishing spot. Most likely it is. Etc. Anecdotal evidence is important for everyone BUT the scientist.

 

[Magical Realist]

No, I was thinking about the effect that electromagnetic fields might have on the brain. Take a nice creapy estate and add some statues and other amenities to make it creapier. Give it a good background story. Then use some kind of electromagnetic field generator to induce hallucinations in the brain. Then, you'll get people to have their own ghost experiences.

What would that prove? I'm sure you could inject massive doses of LSD in subjects and have them spend the night in a spooky castle and get totally bizarre accounts of hallucinated crap. But it wouldn't have anything to do with the paranormal as a real objective phenomenon.

 

[Balerion]

No it isn't worthless. Like I said, many fields find evidence that wouldn't pass scientific standards and yet are still totally successful in using it to hunt down whatever they're looking for. First hand experience trumps science every time.

No it most certainly doesn't. And your claim is extraordinary, which requires extraordinary evidence. So far you can't even muster regular evidence, since everything you offer can be explained away.

 

[Balerion]

Communications with these beings is so transient and iffy you're lucky if you illicit an intelligent response at all much less the biographical details of their life.

So in order to believe your claim, we have to accept this ridiculous, unverifiable premise.

It's a very convenient built-in excuse for why it won't work when credible people are watching.

 

[Mazulu]

What would that prove? I'm sure you could inject massive doses of LSD in subjects and have them spend the night in a spooky castle and get totally bizarre accounts of hallucinated crap. But it wouldn't have anything to do with the paranormal as a real objective phenomenon.

It's not intended to prove the paranormal. It's intended to create a particular kind of experience that might be enjoyable and fun for people. I wouldn't use drugs to enhance the experience. But if there were electronic devices that could some people to hallucinate, you might be concerned about safety.

 

[wegs]

Detectives solve crimes. Not scientists. Hunters kill deer. Not scientists. Fisherman catch fish. Not scientists. Goldhunters find gold. Not scientists. I don't think certain fields lend themselves to the exacting standards and rigor of hard science. Not everything is perfectly quantitative or replicable, especially when dealing with living entities. Alot depends on experience, heuristics, serendipity, and gut intuitions. Things you're not gonna find in a science textbook.

Are you defining the paranormal as "living entities?" I wouldn't define it as such.

In the comparisons above, deer, fish, gold etc are all tangible and don't need verification of their existence. They represent objective reality. If only one person can hear "the ghost" whispering in his/her house, and it hasn't been (and can't be) verified by anyone else, that would fall into the realm of subjective reality. (all things being equal)

Not all that much different than people who believe in God, while you don't. Does God not exist because you don't believe in him/it? Does God not exist because he can't be "proven?" I think there is room for subjective reality in cases like these, because there are unknowable things that may never fit squarely into objective reality. One's perception is one's reality. If I claim to have seen a ghost, yet can't prove it, I'm still convinced of seeing a ghost. But, there has to be parameters around how we define objective reality. Unfortunately, the paranormal doesn't and may never fit into that category.

 

[Mazulu]

Are you defining the paranormal as "living entities?" I wouldn't define it as such.

In the comparisons above, deer, fish, gold etc are all tangible and don't need verification of their existence. They represent objective reality. If only one person can hear "the ghost" whispering in his/her house, and it hasn't been (and can't be) verified by anyone else, that would fall into the realm of subjective reality. (all things being equal)

Not all that much different than people who believe in God, while you don't. Does God not exist because you don't believe in him/it? Does God not exist because he can't be "proven?" I think there is room for subjective reality in cases like these, because there are unknowable things that may never fit squarely into objective reality. One's perception is one's reality. If I claim to have seen a ghost, yet can't prove it, I'm still convinced of seeing a ghost. But, there has to be parameters around how we define objective reality. Unfortunately, the paranormal doesn't and may never fit into that category.

What if there are dark matter manifestations, dark matter ecosystems and entities? Things made of dark matter that exist without hour noticing them?

 

[Magical Realist]

Are you defining the paranormal as "living entities?" I wouldn't define it as such.

They have some kind of lifeforce. I'd call them alive.

In the comparisons above, deer, fish, gold etc are all tangible and don't need verification of their existence. They represent objective reality. If only one person can hear "the ghost" whispering in his/her house, and it hasn't been (and can't be) verified by anyone else, that would fall into the realm of subjective reality. (all things being equal)

Same with the paranormal. Investigators already know ghosts exist. The issue is pretty much settled with them. For them then it is a matter of finding them and producing better evidence for them. That's a firsthand experiential type knowledge that a scientist would be no help in providing.

Not all that much different than people who believe in God, while you don't. Does God not exist because you don't believe in him/it?

God doesn't exist because there's no evidence for him. Have you seen any? I haven't.

Does God not exist because he can't be "proven?"

Yes. A being with objective reality should be able to interact with us in physical reality in some way. This never happens with God. It's all subjective inner feelings. Nothing anyone can point to and say with certaintly "Here's God." That's why he doesn't exist.

I think there is room for subjective reality in cases like these, because there are unknowable things that may never fit squarely into objective reality. One's perception is one's reality. If I claim to have seen a ghost, yet can't prove it, I'm still convinced of seeing a ghost. But, there has to be parameters around how we define objective reality. Unfortunately, the paranormal doesn't and may never fit into that category.

People have many subjective experiences with ghosts. Senses of being possessed or taken over. Feelings of being watched. I don't doubt that these are genuine. But it's not really going to do much for skeptics out there that you had a certain feeling. It's the objective evidence that is needed here. And so far there's lots of it. You just have to look into it and not be biased against the people who present the evidence.