Sounds of ghosts from abandoned insane asylum

[Magical Realist]

The Terrifying Amherst Poltergeist

http://paranormal.about.com/od/poltergeists/a/The-Terrifying-Amherst-Poltergeis.htm

 

[Magical Realist]

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.

Precisely! The skeptics sit online or in magazine offices claiming this and that about paranormal activity. Meanwhile the thousands of people actually doing the research out in the field are either totally ignored or even maligned as con artists. Why are we taking the word of the people who DON'T spend time in numerous haunted locations gathering the evidence? People who make a living trying to debunk everything from ufos to bigfoot to psychic phenomena. It's their job and their reputation that are at stake. Ofcourse they're never going to admit there's evidence. EVER!

 

[wegs]

Precisely! The skeptics sit online or in magazine offices claiming this and that about paranormal activity. Meanwhile the thousands of people actually doing the research out in the field are either totally ignored or even maligned as con artists. Why are we taking the word of the people who DON'T spend time in numerous haunted locations gathering the evidence? People who make a living trying to debunk everything from ufos to bigfoot to psychic phenomena. It's their job and their reputation that are at stake. Ofcourse they're never going to admit there's evidence. EVER!

Bigfoot is a different story.... But that is neither here nor there.

I posted that above, because you mention circular arguments, and that is part and parcel of circular arguing. "*I* don't believe ghosts exist, therefore ghosts don't exist." lol

 

[spidergoat]

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.

Hmmm, things that make me go.... you don't have a clue what science is. Claims can be denied logically unless there is evidence for them. The people making the claim have the burden of proof. The paranormal is an extraordinary claim since it would contradict everything we already know about how the universe works. You are making the logical fallacy of argument from authority. meaning that people who "make a living" are those in authority, that's not how science works. Show me the legitimate peer reviewed paper on the subject and then we can talk.

 

[spidergoat]

Precisely! The skeptics sit online or in magazine offices claiming this and that about paranormal activity. Meanwhile the thousands of people actually doing the research out in the field are either totally ignored or even maligned as con artists. Why are we taking the word of the people who DON'T spend time in numerous haunted locations gathering the evidence? People who make a living trying to debunk everything from ufos to bigfoot to psychic phenomena. It's their job and their reputation that are at stake. Ofcourse they're never going to admit there's evidence. EVER!

You are a liar. That's not how it works. You should be encouraging skeptics, since skepticism is critical in separating truth from fiction. Where are the peer reviewed papers? Nowhere, that's where.

 

[Magical Realist]

Anecdotal reports are not valid evidence, no matter who they come from

"Anecdotal" as in eyewitness accounts. Like those anecdotal accounts of Christopher Columbus and his crew when they returned to Spain. Like the anecdotal accounts of Charles Darwin on the Galapagos Islands. Like the anecdotal accounts of Marco Polo. Naw..who accepts anecdotal reports?

 

[spidergoat]

"Anecdotal" as in eyewitness accounts. Like those anecdotal accounts of Christopher Columbus and his crew when they returned to Spain. Like the anecdotal accounts of Charles Darwin on the Galapagos Islands. Like the anecdotal accounts of Marco Polo. Naw..who accepts anecdotal reports?

Charles Darwin had finches. Columbus had gold and native slaves. Marco Polo had a whole album of vacation slides that no one wanted to look at.

That last one was a joke, but a cursory reading of the wikipedia reveals that in fact people did doubt that Polo went to China, and legitimately so.

 

[Balerion]

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."

Again, this is a straw man. No one has made that claim.

Are you incapable of doing this on the level, wegs? No one would blame you if you've decided to shift your blind faith from God to ghost, but casting aspersions on others isn't winning you any friends.

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.

Another day, another broken analogy. Taking preparation advice from a seasoned runner is not the same thing as accepting "evidence" from ghost hunters. And again, if you can show me a piece of evidence that isn't better explained by some other phenomenon, then do it. Until then, I have no reason to believe that the paranormal is anything more than wish-thinking. Your behavior in this thread isn't doing anything to dissuade me of that opinion, by the way; the weakness of your argument is one thing, but then to resort to straw men, misrepresentations, and baseless accusations, well, that just demonstrates that you know how weak your argument is.

Things that make you go...hmmm.

More like things that make you durrrr.

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

Not how it works. I can give you more reasonable explanations for any evidence you've provided thusfar; it's up to you to demonstrate how the crazy explanation is the correct one.

 

[Magical Realist]

You are a liar. That's not how it works. You should be encouraging skeptics, since skepticism is critical in separating truth from fiction. Where are the peer reviewed papers? Fucking nowhere, that's where.

Where are the scientists brave enough to endure the ridicule of their peers and actually research this field firsthand? Nowhere, that's where. It's so taboo in the ivory towers of Scienceland you might as well be flushing your future career down the toilet.

 

[Balerion]

Where are the scientists brave enough to endure the ridicule of their peers and actually research this field firsthand? Fucking nowhere, that's where. It's so taboo in the ivory towers of Scienceland you might as well be flushing your future career down the toilet.

And here comes the religious zealot, parroting the words of the Intelligent Design community.

You're a joke.

 

[Magical Realist]

Charles Darwin had finches. Columbus had gold and native slaves. Marco Polo had a whole album of vacation slides that no one wanted to look at.

And paranormal researchers have photos and video and EVPs and direct experiences and EMF readings and infrared cameras and full spectrum analyzers and vibration detectors, etc and etc.

 

[wegs]

Hmmm, things that make me go.... you don't have a clue what science is. Claims can be denied logically unless there is evidence for them. The people making the claim have the burden of proof. The paranormal is an extraordinary claim since it would contradict everything we already know about how the universe works. You are making the logical fallacy of argument from authority. meaning that people who "make a living" are those in authority, that's not how science works. Show me the legitimate peer reviewed paper on the subject and then we can talk.

I do understand how science works, and I understand your point. I'm not speaking from authority on this subject with certainty or otherwise, however. (you and Balerion are) I'm saying be open minded, that is all.

 

[Balerion]

I do understand how science works, and I understand your point. I'm not speaking from authority on this subject with certainty or otherwise, however. (you and Balerion are) I'm saying be open minded, that is all.

Here comes the retreat.

Run along, wegs. Grown ups are talking.

 

[Magical Realist]

It's not even assured you can submit ghosts to the scientific method. Who would you get in the boat with--the experienced fisherman guide, or some PhD who does nothing but write papers and equations on chalkboards all day? If you wanna find the fish, you go with the experienced one.

 

[Magical Realist]

And here comes the religious zealot, parroting the words of the Intelligent Design community.

You're a joke.

Can the ad homs now or I'll report your ass again. You remember what it's like to be banned don't you? lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

Not how it works, sunshine. I can give you more reasonable explanations for any evidence you've provided thusfar; it's up to you to demonstrate how the batshit crazy explanation is the correct one.

In other words, you have precisely zero evidence supporting your claim that paranormal evidence is faked. How could I not see that one coming?

 

[Magical Realist]

Here comes the retreat.

Run along, wegs. Grown ups are talking.

Balerion always becomes a smartass prick when he knows he's losing the argument. It just gets uglier and uglier with every desperate post he makes. That's why there's a point where I just break off. Then he'll accuse me of running or woosing out or some such juvenile taunt. Standard loser tactics..

 

[spidergoat]

Where are the scientists brave enough to endure the ridicule of their peers and actually research this field firsthand? Fucking nowhere, that's where. It's so taboo in the ivory towers of Scienceland you might as well be flushing your future career down the toilet.

If they really had compelling evidence, it would make their career. There would be extreme skepticism, to be sure, but then people would start reproducing the result themselves, and it would become knowledge.

 

[spidergoat]

And paranormal researchers have photos and video and EVPs and direct experiences and EMF readings and infrared cameras and full spectrum analyzers and vibration detectors, etc and etc.

Showing what? Something that requires biased interpretation?

 

[spidergoat]

I do understand how science works, and I understand your point. I'm not speaking from authority on this subject with certainty or otherwise, however. (you and Balerion are) I'm saying be open minded, that is all.

I'm open minded to evidence, but not to stupidity.