why we need ghosts

I do not need to waste my time checking out your dodgy blurry photographs, and your voices in the night, to know that they are like all the rest.
If you had anything fair dinkum, on any of the issues you push, you would not be here.


But as yet you have not supplied any evidence that exclusively shows that your wild imaginings of ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, and Aliens are real:
Let me say again, the best you or your compatriots have ever done, is show something that as yet remains unexplained.

If you had anything of substance that shows exclusively that one or more of your paranormal/supernatural nonsense did exist, you would not be here and you would not need to bore us with such repeatable details, and the same old grainy photographs, if they had been scientifically verified as real:
That of course has not happened as yet.
 
Last edited:
sideshowbob said:
I'd go with sonar.
Click to expand...

Sort of like an EMF detector eh? :)

Published on May 9, 2013
"While investigating on the fifth tier cell block of Mansfield Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio, the Tri-Field Natural EM Meter begins to spike extremely high. The movement you see is actually the camcorder movement as the meter was being held perfectly still with my elbow locked."



Here's another EMF spike with an orb:

Uploaded on Mar 30, 2010
"This Video shows a paranormal investigator sitting on the stairs and and my EMF Meter started spiking and then you'll see a spirit orb on the right hand side of the investigator."


 
Last edited:
birch said:
Because humans are already discovered territory and therefore not mysterious. They also have no superpowers. Ghosts are very mysterious and they can do anything we can imagine. Its actually good brain stretching exercise in creativity.
Click to expand...

"Ghost" is a label that carries the baggage of pre-naturalism (as a monist philosophy) affiliations with it, as well as "paranomal" connotations -- PN often seeming just a contemporary synonym for or re-working of the those traditional assumptions. Is there a more recent, neutral classification that you could introduce (or even invent on the spot)?
 
Magical Realist said:
"This Video shows a paranormal investigator sitting on the stairs and and my EMF Meter started spiking and then you'll see a spirit orb on the right hand side of the investigator."
Click to expand...
Why on earth would anybody attribute an EMF spike to a "spirit orb"?
 
Magical Realist said:
No not always. Here's an instance where a ghost appeared in broad daylight:

Click to expand...
This is an excellent example of paredolia.

She said it was not there when she rode by. It is only seen in the film.
All we see is a shape that has bright and dark spots that look like a face.
faceV1.gif

And, like the above, the resemblance to a face disappeared under different viewing conditions:
1] Not seen from her nearer vantage point.
2] Not seen some time later from a different angle in the video.

The elongated shape below the face-like image may or may not be related (but our minds want to think so), though it is just as likely to be part of the background of trees.

Likely a tree stump.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Because of all the other evidence that spirits have provided on investigations. Sounds, lights, emf energy, cold spots, moving figures, moving objects, voices, scents, and scratches and tugs on investigators.
Click to expand...
None of that is evidence of "spirits". It's more like confirmation bias. What other possible hypotheses have been considered?
 
sideshowbob said:
None of that is evidence of "spirits". It's more like confirmation bias. What other possible hypotheses have been considered?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It's real and objective evidence for paranormal phenomena. How many investigations have you observed? What other hypothesis are you suggesting?
 
Magical Realist said:
It's real and objective evidence for paranormal phenomena.
Click to expand...
That statement in itself shows confirmation bias. You're assuming that paranormal phenomena exist and you're linking all of the evidence to that assumption.
Magical Realist said:
What other hypothesis are you suggesting?
Click to expand...
The question is: What other hypotheses have your investigators suggested? The onus is on them to eliminate all other possibilities before jumping to "paranormal" conclusions.
 
sideshowbob said:
That statement in itself shows confirmation bias. You're assuming that paranormal phenomena exist and you're linking all of the evidence to that assumption.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm basing my conclusion that it's paranormal based on the objective evidence it repeatedly and in hundreds of investigations exhibits. It's the same thing, not an unlikely confluence of noisy pipes, emf misreadings, bugs, delusions, hallucinations, and hoaxes.

The question is: What other hypotheses have your investigators suggested? The onus is on them to eliminate all other possibilities before jumping to "paranormal" conclusions.
Click to expand...

They have eliminated the mundane possibilities. That's why they conclude paranormal. The onus is on them only to reach the most logical conclusion based in the evidence. And that's what they do.
 
Magical Realist said:
I'm basing my conclusion that it's paranormal based on the objective evidence it repeatedly and in hundreds of investigations exhibits.
Click to expand...
You can not legitimately conclude "para"normal based on normal observations. What you're saying is essentially, "Some things can not be explained - so here's the explanation."

They have eliminated the mundane possibilities.
Click to expand...
Then why hasn't science as a whole reached the same conclusions?

The onus is on them only to reach the most logical conclusion based in the evidence.
Click to expand...
The correct approach is to admit when you can't explain something, not jump to the conclusion of "spirits".
 
sideshowbob said:
You can not legitimately conclude "para"normal based on normal observations. What you're saying is essentially, "Some things can not be explained - so here's the explanation."
Click to expand...

LOL! Saying something isn't explained is not an explanation. Saying it is paranormal is an explanation and one based on compelling evidence.


Then why hasn't science as a whole reached the same conclusions?
Click to expand...

For the one hundredth time, science mocks and ridicules this field relentlessly. Any scientist who researched it would get his funding revoked and his reputation trashed. That is the nature of a largely peer driven and grant funded field of study. Toe the line buddy or else.

The correct approach is to admit when you can't explain something, not jump to the conclusion of "spirits".
Click to expand...

Saying you can't explain it is a failure. You might as well not be doing research at all. But if the phenomenon exhibits the characteristics of the paranormal, then by all means we posit the paranormal. That's logic 101.
 
Magical Realist said:
But if the phenomenon exhibits the characteristics of the paranormal, then by all means we posit the paranormal.
Click to expand...
This is a tautology. You are attempting to use your conclusion as your premise.

"We conclude that these are paranormal incidents because - if paranormal incidents were real - they would look like this. Since they do look like this, they must be real."

Likewise:

You: "It is trivial to show that 4+4=10 (conclusion); this is backed up by the fact that 2+2=5 (premise)."
Logic: "OK, and where have you shown that 2+2=5 (premise not yet granted)?"
You: "It is trivial. Start with 4+4=10 (conclusion as premise)..."


Magical Realist said:
That's logic 101.
Click to expand...
So please stop using this term incorrectly.
Most forum members here - whether you respect them or not - are not so foolish that they can't see ineptly mangled attempts at logic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top