Sounds of ghosts from abandoned insane asylum

[wegs]

You've got to demonstrate that the paranormal actually exists before you start deciding what kind of science it is.

Perhaps stating what you would consider evidence of the paranormal, would be a good place to start.

Oh, so now it's bias that makes Occam shear the paranormal out of existence? I see. How convenient.

The information that is available to us with respect to using Occam’s Razor with possible paranormal occurrences, is that it was never ‘designed’ to be used in that format. (It’s quite inconvenient in that way.) But, like I stated above, there are times when an ‘unlikely’ answer can be the simplest answer, but if one harbors bias, the evidence will always seem to lack credibility. OR is designed to work ‘best’ with explaining natural phenomenon, not the paranormal, or any potential ‘unknowns.’ That’s not to say people don’t utilize it for such purposes.

The only bias I have is for the truth. Before you get to me to admit that the paranormal is even possible, you need to tell me why Exhibit A isn't better explained by something more mundane. Forget Occam's Razor for a moment, just show me a piece of purported evidence for something paranormal that cannot be explained away by misunderstanding, mistake in memory, or outright fabrication.

I'll look for some well documented cases that aren't built around 'hype,' and you can review, if you like.

My point was that it isn't about "common" answers, but simple answers, and your analogy does not address this. If you're in Oklahoma and you hear galloping, the most simple explanation is that a horse is nearby. If you want to claim it's a zebra, you had better come up with a good explanation.

I know. Moot point. Geographic location should have been assumed, however. (on your part) I was just proving as to how OR is best utilized. (when comparing two natural occurrences, one being the simplest answer, as opposed to comparing a set of natural phenomenon, against the paranormal.)

Lying isn't evidence, it's an explanation. Do you need evidence that people lie? Do you think it's more likely that there is some fundamental misunderstanding of the universe as it pertains to ghosts and other beings than it is that someone is lying about their experience? As I said, if you want to answer yes, then you'd better make a good case. So far, I haven't seen it.

OR always points us to the ‘simplest’ truth. (not the easiest way out) That said, lying could be the "simplest truth," in a number of instances, but doesn’t reveal anything of substance. In my opinion, rebuttals such as ‘they’re lying,’ or ‘it’s a hoax,’ (while either could be true) is usually based off bias on the part of the skeptic. (Most importantly, skeptics tend to let their bias immediately discount the credibility of paranormal "experts," instead of letting OR run its proper course.) I could be revealing my bias towards skeptics.

 

[Magical Realist]

San Pedro Poltergeist case:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread672735/pg1

 

[wegs]

San Pedro Poltergeist case:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread672735/pg1

Problem with that case, Magical, is that the person claiming to have been a witness to poltergeist activity, had also been under a lot of mental duress, and came from an abusive and violent background. (which apparently, is ‘common’ for people claiming to be poltergeist sufferers) Not that I automatically and completely discount the claim, but that type of background information casts doubt, as to the credibility of the story.

Honestly? The best case you have posted to date, is the OT of this thread. Reason being, the people who are sharing their ‘evidence’ have no skin in the game. Schimmenti doesn’t even believe in ghosts, and his group and he inadvertently picked up the eery sounds of what could be potentially paranormal activity.

Their ‘story’ seems more credible than most.

 

[Magical Realist]

Problem with that case, Magical, is that the person claiming to have been a witness to poltergeist activity, had also been under a lot of mental duress, and came from an abusive and violent background. (which apparently, is ‘common’ for people claiming to be poltergeist sufferers) Not that I automatically and completely discount the claim, but that type of background information casts doubt, as to the credibility of the story.

Honestly? The best case you have posted to date, is the OT of this thread. Reason being, the people who are sharing their ‘evidence’ have no skin in the game. Schimmenti doesn’t even believe in ghosts, and his group and he inadvertently picked up the eery sounds of what could be potentially paranormal activity.

Their ‘story’ seems more credible than most.

That's what I was thinking. When you have a skeptic experiencing paranormal activity, it suddenly lends his/her accounts a whole new level of credibility. Ofcourse this didn't even phase the denialists here, being so in denial mode that can't even consider the topic objectively. It makes me wonder what exactly would happen to them IF ghosts were proven to exist? Doesn't seem to me that science would be threatened at all, as long as we recognize contact with them is an anomolous event and not something that happens all the time.

 

[Balerion]

Perhaps stating what you would consider evidence of the paranormal, would be a good place to start.

I've already told you what I expect. You even quote it in this post.

The information that is available to us with respect to using Occam’s Razor with possible paranormal occurrences, is that it was never ‘designed’ to be used in that format. (It’s quite inconvenient in that way.) But, like I stated above, there are times when an ‘unlikely’ answer can be the simplest answer, but if one harbors bias, the evidence will always seem to lack credibility. OR is designed to work ‘best’ with explaining natural phenomenon, not the paranormal, or any potential ‘unknowns.’ That’s not to say people don’t utilize it for such purposes.

It works beautifully in this context, because it forces anyone who ascribes something to the paranormal to adhere to the maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It's not enough to have a creepy-looking picture and say "Well, this could be a ghostblob on here," because the simpler explanation is that it's something mundane, like a lens flair or film artifact. If you want anyone who isn't a credulous buffoon to believe that it's actually a ghost, you'll have to do better than that.

I'll look for some well documented cases that aren't built around 'hype,' and you can review, if you like.

Good luck. Of course, the implication here is that I'm simply unaware of a trove of well-documented and legitimate cases of paranormal activity. The truth is that none exist.

I know. Moot point. Geographic location should have been assumed, however. (on your part) I was just proving as to how OR is best utilized. (when comparing two natural occurrences, one being the simplest answer, as opposed to comparing a set of natural phenomenon, against the paranormal.)

How does "It's either a zebra or a horse" prove this? Zebras aren't paranormal; they actually exist. And I have no idea where you live, so which geographic location should I have assumed?

OR always points us to the ‘simplest’ truth. (not the easiest way out) That said, lying could be the "simplest truth," in a number of instances, but doesn’t reveal anything of substance. In my opinion, rebuttals such as ‘they’re lying,’ or ‘it’s a hoax,’ (while either could be true) is usually based off bias on the part of the skeptic. (Most importantly, skeptics tend to let their bias immediately discount the credibility of paranormal "experts," instead of letting OR run its proper course.) I could be revealing my bias towards skeptics.

That's silly. The bias is all your own (and that of the paranormal believer), evidenced in phrases like "the simplest way out," suggesting that people who disbelieve do so for reasons unrelated to the total lack of credible evidence. It's easier to paint me as a biased skeptic because it absolves you of any responsibility by dismissing me as not being credible.

I'll say it again: if you want to make anyone with a brain believe that the paranormal exists, you'll have to make with actual evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

Problem with that case, Magical, is that the person claiming to have been a witness to poltergeist activity, had also been under a lot of mental duress, and came from an abusive and violent background. (which apparently, is ‘common’ for people claiming to be poltergeist sufferers) Not that I automatically and completely discount the claim, but that type of background information casts doubt, as to the credibility of the story.

Honestly? The best case you have posted to date, is the OT of this thread. Reason being, the people who are sharing their ‘evidence’ have no skin in the game. Schimmenti doesn’t even believe in ghosts, and his group and he inadvertently picked up the eery sounds of what could be potentially paranormal activity.

Their ‘story’ seems more credible than most.

No, that's not the problem. It doesn't matter who is the witness. Anecdotal reports are not valid evidence, no matter who they come from. Eery sounds are also not evidence. Even voices wouldn't be evidence. We know people have voices and there are all kinds of ways to project sound into an area.

 

[spidergoat]

ANYTHING can be "explained away" given those three alternatives. Why should we believe in global warming? Or evolution? Or plate tectonics theory when it could all be explained away by "misunderstanding, mistake in memory, or outright fabrication?"

Not really, all those theories have associated compelling and legitimate evidence.

 

[wegs]

Pre-existing bias

I will reply to your other points (Balerion), but I wanted to post this lest I forget.

People who believe in the paranormal only need to show reasonable (not extraordinary) evidence to support their claims. Part of their responsibility is to eliminate reasonable doubts (not unreasonable) that a skeptic may have towards the paranormal.

What is not their responsibility, is having to conquer a skeptic’s pre-existing bias. You have commented in this thread that there has been no evidence supporting the existence of the paranormal to date. (in your opinion) By all accounts, you feel there is no proof that exists to substantiate the claims made by many people who have claimed to witness the paranormal. I get the sense that you feel there will be no future evidence, either. If you drag your preconceived notions into every case – then, it will be an exhaustive, futile effort on the part of the paranormal believer.

In short, you can’t expect someone who believes in the paranormal to conquer your pre-existing bias AND provide extraordinary evidence. To you, if a person who believes in the paranormal can’t accomplish that feat, or some variation thereof, then you will conclude that there is no evidence for supporting the existence of the paranormal.

Even jurors when deliberating a court case, have to set aside their pre-existing biases, in order to render an objective and appropriate verdict.

 

[Magical Realist]

Not really, all those theories have associated compelling and legitimate evidence.

Never know. Could all be faked ya know. Special funding concerns, published papers, and such..

 

[Magical Realist]

The logic of the denialist is perfectly circular: there is no evidence for ghosts because there's no such thing as ghosts. And there's no such thing as ghosts because there's no evidence for ghosts. How can you possibly argue with THAT! lol!

 

[Balerion]

People who believe in the paranormal only need to show reasonable (not extraordinary) evidence to support their claims.

Reasonable and extraordinary are not mutually exclusive.

For example, a picture of a new species of frog might be enough to get people's attention, whereas a picture of a ghost isn't going to be sufficient since ghosts have never been established to be an actual phenomenon and there are so many more reasonable explanations for it.

Part of their responsibility is to eliminate reasonable doubts (not unreasonable) that a skeptic may have towards the paranormal.

What unreasonable doubts do rational people have toward the paranormal?

What is not their responsibility, is having to conquer a skeptic’s pre-existing bias. You have commented in this thread that there has been no evidence supporting the existence of the paranormal to date. (in your opinion) By all accounts, you feel there is no proof that exists to substantiate the claims made by many people who have claimed to witness the paranormal. I get the sense that you feel there will be no future evidence, either. If you drag your preconceived notions into every case – then, it will be an exhaustive, futile effort on the part of the paranormal believer.

Again with the baseless accusations. Not expecting there to be any evidence in the future is not a bias. It's an opinion, and one that would be changed in the face of legitimate evidence to the contrary.

In short, you can’t expect someone who believes in the paranormal to conquer your pre-existing bias AND provide extraordinary evidence. To you, if a person who believes in the paranormal can’t accomplish that feat, or some variation thereof, then you will conclude that there is no evidence for supporting the existence of the paranormal.

Straw man, as I said.

Even jurors when deliberating a court case, have to set aside their pre-existing biases, in order to render an objective and appropriate verdict.

I have no bias. Except for the truth.

 

[Balerion]

The logic of the denialist is perfectly circular: there is no evidence for ghosts because there's no such thing as ghosts. And there's no such thing as ghosts because there's no evidence for ghosts. How can you possibly argue with THAT! lol!

The only person to demonstrate circular logic in this thread is you, when you said that you'd consider the existence of God if people would start showing up with photographic evidence of him, but they wouldn't because God is a fairy tale.

Stop lying.

 

[spidergoat]

Never know. Could all be faked ya know. Special funding concerns, published papers, and such..

Do you have any evidence that it's all faked?

 

[Magical Realist]

The only person to demonstrate circular logic in this thread is you, when you said that you'd consider the existence of God if people would start showing up with photographic evidence of him, but they wouldn't because God is a fairy tale.

Stop lying.

ARE people showing up with photographic, audio, and eyewitness accounts of God? No? I rest my case then..

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you have any evidence that it's all faked?

Do you have any evidence paranormal evidence is faked?

 

[Balerion]

ARE people showing up with photographic, audio, and eyewitness accounts of God? No? I rest my case then..

People have claimed to see Jesus and Mary in photographs, glass, even potato chips, so there goes that. Many people claim to see and hear Jesus and/or God, so there goes that. But even if no one did, that doesn't change the circular nature of your argument.

MR, instead of misrepresenting everyone and resorting to straw men, just admit that you're overwhelmed here. It's okay. Trust me, we'd all think more highly of you if you did.

 

[Balerion]

Do you have any evidence paranormal evidence is faked?

Do you have any evidence that it's not?

 

[spidergoat]

Do you have any evidence paranormal evidence is faked?

As far as I know, there isn't any legitimate paranormal evidence. At least not much. I saw one study that showed a statistically significant telepathic effect.

 

[wegs]

Well, part of the problem here is when someone views him/herself as having authority to deny claims of the paranormal with certainty. "Ghosts don't exist because I haven't seen sufficient evidence to support their existence."

One wouldn't apply that "logic" to anything in the natural world. If you have never run a marathon, you would take the advice rather quickly of people who have run marathons, as to how to train for one. Yes? But, with the paranormal, skeptics don't take the evidence of those who study possible paranormal events, for a living. The skeptic becomes the authority, with certainty no less, simply because he doesn't wish to believe in it.

Things that make you go...hmmm.

 

[Magical Realist]

Do you have any evidence that it's not?

Not my burden. You are the one making the claim it's faked. Then prove it!