ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th March 2017, 03:33 AM   #81
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Ah, but there's a defect in your modelling of ghosts. You see, I omitted to mention a detail in my flour-model. In the situation where the ghost is decently clothed, it's possible to tuck a vertically-pointing permanently-switched on battery-powered torch down the shirt that illuminates the face - needed you understand for a really convincing ghost effect. (It also helps to look wide-eyed and unblinking as well, but that's by the way).

You rely on reflection, semi-transparency etc to create your ghost effect. But there's that vital element missing - namely self-luminosity.

Sorry. I claim the superior model (as I do also likewise with that enigmatic 'ghostly' Shroud - despite it relying on boring old plain white flour and cake-baking technology).
Wrong again. None of those was involved, just a camera and my kids. Certainly no flour. Your inability to figure it out is your failure and yours alone.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 04:29 AM   #82
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wrong again. None of those was involved, just a camera and my kids. Certainly no flour. Your inability to figure it out is your failure and yours alone.
Are you really expecting folk to figure out, from one photograph alone, how you were able to produce that faint, semi-transparent image of your children (especially given the power of modern photo-editing software)?

That's almost as bad as expecting someone to explain the Turin Shroud, given just one faint imprint on centuries-old linen - with no accompanying back-story documentation, bar a mid-14th century claim from a miffed Troyes bishop, almost certainly wrong - that it was "cunningly painted".

So was your image cunningly photoedited, as distinct from my initial (surely not unreasonable?) hunch that partially reflective glass doors in your home played a key role?
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:04 AM   #83
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Are you really expecting folk to figure out, from one photograph alone, how you were able to produce that faint, semi-transparent image of your children (especially given the power of modern photo-editing software)?

That's almost as bad as expecting someone to explain the Turin Shroud, given just one faint imprint on centuries-old linen - with no accompanying back-story documentation, bar a mid-14th century claim from a miffed Troyes bishop, almost certainly wrong - that it was "cunningly painted".

So was your image cunningly photoedited, as distinct from my initial (surely not unreasonable?) hunch that partially reflective glass doors in your home played a key role?
Still wrong. No photoshop was involved. It is an extremely commonplace and simple method. No reflective surfaces or any such artificial accessories. Nothing but me, the camera and two kids. The very fact that you immediately reach for the most complex and convoluted explanation should give you pause for a little self reflection. Occam is verily spinning so much in his grave that he is airborne at this point.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:19 AM   #84
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,920
The simplest explanation is that ghosts are real. And the Shroud too.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:29 AM   #85
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,286
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Are you really expecting folk to figure out, from one photograph alone, how you were able to produce that faint, semi-transparent image of your children (especially given the power of modern photo-editing software)?

That's almost as bad as expecting someone to explain the Turin Shroud, given just one faint imprint on centuries-old linen - with no accompanying back-story documentation, bar a mid-14th century claim from a miffed Troyes bishop, almost certainly wrong - that it was "cunningly painted".

So was your image cunningly photoedited, as distinct from my initial (surely not unreasonable?) hunch that partially reflective glass doors in your home played a key role?
Okay what does it matter? You're missing the point.

Ghost's aren't real. The shroud isn't real. The point is all the so called "evidence" for them can be replicated without too much backbreaking effort to the degree that it's functionally indistinguishable from evidence actually put forth for them.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:42 AM   #86
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Still wrong. No photoshop was involved. It is an extremely commonplace and simple method. No reflective surfaces or any such artificial accessories. Nothing but me, the camera and two kids. The very fact that you immediately reach for the most complex and convoluted explanation should give you pause for a little self reflection. Occam is verily spinning so much in his grave that he is airborne at this point.
Bless! There's an expression about disappearing up one's own orifice that I half recall... Can someone assist in naming said orifice?
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:45 AM   #87
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Deleted, dup.

Last edited by marplots; 5th March 2017 at 05:57 AM.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 05:55 AM   #88
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Bless! There's an expression about disappearing up one's own orifice that I half recall... Can someone assist in naming said orifice?
You are dodging the point that JoeBentley succinctly stated.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 06:06 AM   #89
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Still wrong. No photoshop was involved. It is an extremely commonplace and simple method. No reflective surfaces or any such artificial accessories. Nothing but me, the camera and two kids. The very fact that you immediately reach for the most complex and convoluted explanation should give you pause for a little self reflection. Occam is verily spinning so much in his grave that he is airborne at this point.
I'd imagine you used a a long exposure. That's the simplest method.

Having got that out of the way, the argument on both sides is pointless without fixing the definition of the word being discussed. If you define a ghost as an external entity present in physical space then it's almost certain ghosts don't exist. If, however, you define 'ghost' as a figure genuinely yet subjectively perceived, then it's almost certain ghosts do exist.

The dictionary definition of 'ghost' goes something like this

Quote:
An apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.
This definition does not specify external reality and when you bear in mind (no pun intended) that even a subjective image, real to the perceiver, must actually exist, then it can be argued that ghosts do exist.

(For the record, that definition is actually incorrect in one important area: Most 'ghosts' that are identified by the perceiver are images of the living, not the dead).
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 06:14 AM   #90
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You are dodging the point that JoeBentley succinctly stated.
But I was responding to your style of put-down - designed to instantly humiliate, the bane of internet discourse I might add.

Had I been responding directly to Joe Bentley I'd have suggested a modest rearranging of his argument as follows to make it less strident, less dogmatic.

Instead of:

"Ghost's aren't real. The shroud isn't real. The point is all the so called "evidence" for them can be replicated without too much backbreaking effort to the degree that it's functionally indistinguishable from evidence actually put forth for them."

it would have read:

"The point is all the so called "evidence" for them (ghosts) can be replicated without too much backbreaking effort to the degree that it's functionally indistinguishable from evidence actually put forth for them. So the chances are that ghosts aren't real, probably not the Shroud either"

I'm all in favour of making one's points succinctly, but, but... one needs to acknowledge areas of uncertainty too, and not attempt to be over-prescriptive.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 06:33 AM   #91
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,286
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
Had I been responding directly to Joe Bentley I'd have suggested a modest rearranging of his argument as follows to make it less strident, less dogmatic.
Oh save it. I'm not playing the "You're a big mean dogmatic strident poopie head because you clearly and directly said my Woo isn't true instead of hiding it behind of apologetics" game with you or anyone else.

I'm not hiding reality behind apologetics in order to go easier on your Woo.

I'm not going to say "Ghost probably don't exist" anymore then I am going to say "The sun is probably going to rise tomorrow."
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 06:57 AM   #92
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,612
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Which all boils down to skeptics not believing in something until there is evidence for it, and then, if that evidence is found, accepting the thing as real.
What exactly is the problem here?


.
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
A sceptic's response to an unevidenced and implausible claim is to assume it is false until and unless objective evidence is forthcoming to support it. When others insist on believing it despite the lack of evidence and plausibility, a sceptic will often point out how unreasonable that position is.

On the rare occasions when objective evidence is eventually forthcoming, a sceptic's response is to accept the claim and incorporate this new knowledge into their understanding of the world.

You appear to think there is something wrong with this approach to such claims. Please explain what, and why.

What do you think would be a better approach, and why?
I asked this a couple of days ago. I guess Rakovsky is still trying to come up with an answer.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 07:43 AM   #93
meccanoman
Thinker
 
meccanoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Oh save it. I'm not playing the "You're a big mean dogmatic strident poopie head because you clearly and directly said my Woo isn't true instead of hiding it behind of apologetics" game with you or anyone else.

I'm not hiding reality behind apologetics in order to go easier on your Woo.

I'm not going to say "Ghost probably don't exist" anymore then I am going to say "The sun is probably going to rise tomorrow."
What you describe as "woo" is in fact the result of some 5 years of fairly continuous hands-on research. I checked out 9 possible models, some already in the literature, others my own, before settling on the current Model 10 (flour-imprinting) , and having spent the last 18 months checking it out from as many aspects as practically possible, bearing in mind this retired scientist no longer has access to laboratory facilities.

You are, dare I say, woofully mistaken in your attempts to belittle a long-running, still ongoing research project, every stage of which has been reported online, in real time, in some 400 postings or more.

It was a bit naughty of me to have intruded on this thread, though I tried to avoid making it a hijack. Having said that, I shall now take my leave, having said all I wanted to say.
__________________
Member formerly known as Colin Berry
meccanoman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 08:13 AM   #94
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,286
Originally Posted by meccanoman View Post
What you describe as "woo" is in fact the result of some 5 years of fairly continuous hands-on research. I checked out 9 possible models, some already in the literature, others my own, before settling on the current Model 10 (flour-imprinting) , and having spent the last 18 months checking it out from as many aspects as practically possible, bearing in mind this retired scientist no longer has access to laboratory facilities.
I seriously can't tell if you are joking.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 09:11 AM   #95
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,713
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I'd imagine you used a a long exposure. That's the simplest method.
You win one internets.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 09:23 AM   #96
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,720
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I'd imagine you used a a long exposure. That's the simplest method.

Having got that out of the way, the argument on both sides is pointless without fixing the definition of the word being discussed. If you define a ghost as an external entity present in physical space then it's almost certain ghosts don't exist. If, however, you define 'ghost' as a figure genuinely yet subjectively perceived, then it's almost certain ghosts do exist.

The dictionary definition of 'ghost' goes something like this



This definition does not specify external reality and when you bear in mind (no pun intended) that even a subjective image, real to the perceiver, must actually exist, then it can be argued that ghosts do exist.
A thread about this distinction from some years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...08#post2896608

Originally Posted by baron View Post
(For the record, that definition is actually incorrect in one important area: Most 'ghosts' that are identified by the perceiver are images of the living, not the dead).
I've not heard that before - where does it come from?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 10:10 AM   #97
baron
Illuminator
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,832
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
A thread about this distinction from some years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...08#post2896608



I've not heard that before - where does it come from?
From memory I first read it in a book called 'Seeing Ghosts' by Hilary Evans, from an analysis of several hundred reports from the 19th and first half of the 20th century. I stress this is from memory of a book I read 10 years+ ago so I may be mistaken and it could have been another book (I have quite a few).

Related to this, I recommend 'Hallucinations' by Oliver Sacks, not in reference to ghosts per se but the physiological conditions that give rise to 'solid' and often persistent and repeated visions.
__________________
I'm sorry, the fish is awful.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 12:36 PM   #98
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,786
Yup. The most common apparitions are those of still living people.

This is a huge clue into the actual phenomenon, since it clearly illustrates that the phantom, though real to the viewer, is in the head. As a ghost hunter that's where I NOW start, not what did they see, but WHY did they see it?

Some day ghosts will have a proper name and definition that will be in psychiatric journals, or existing conditions will be widened to include apparitions, and voices as symptoms which are not Schizophrenia.

As far as faking ghosts go, most of them are reported as solid, not pale or transparent. That's why all you need is a mirror and quick reflexes.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 5th March 2017 at 12:39 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 01:38 PM   #99
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,587
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
sceptics can never accept 'the paranormal'. The moment they accept it, the phenomenon will not be classified as 'paranormal' but as 'part of nature'. So, don't ever think that a sceptic will accept a paranormal event as paranormal.
Wrong. For something to be accepted as real/scientific/not fake it has to be proven to be real/scientific/not fake. Absent proof, it will not be accepted; with proof (and high level testing carefully and by persons who know how to do the testing thoroughly, correctly) it will be. The odds of most if not all paranormal crap being ever proven real is, for all practical purposes, zero.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 01:40 PM   #100
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,587
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Apparently I live in two parallel universes because I recall this very subject already having a thread.

Deja vu
I believe this is not Maartenn100's first essay into this area.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2017, 07:49 PM   #101
DaBudaMan
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
The article Testing the Supernatural deals with the question of whether "supernatural" is just a label for a phenomenon that we haven't been able to explain using our scientific understanding of the world:

https://bblais.github.io/testing-the-supernatural.html

So if God exists and prayer worked with God using a divine willpower to enact His will, would that be "supernatural"? Maybe, tot he extent that the Lord would be a "supernatural" being. What if the human was given a divine ability like prophecy? Would that be "supernatural", or would the explanation for the phenomenon make it "natural"?
I'm sorry rakovsky, you describe your self as a critical thinker. However I do not see any of that. Science do not work that way. Only religions and theology claims supernaturalism. Science simply call it "x" or an unknown and we shall investigate further. No such supernatural gap to bridge to a deity or g0d. So you need to go back to play school and leave you supernatural toys at home if you want to be a critical thinker. Shalom.
DaBudaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 01:23 PM   #102
Scorpion
Muse
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 557
I am posting an article on the theory that Quantum Physics shows it is possible that consciousness survives death and may go to another universe. I considered starting another thread for it, but I do not know enough about it to host a thread, so it fits into this thread by claiming that survival after death may be natural.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quant...after-death-2/
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 01:34 PM   #103
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,094
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I am posting an article on the theory that Quantum Physics shows it is possible that consciousness survives death and may go to another universe. I considered starting another thread for it, but I do not know enough about it to host a thread, so it fits into this thread by claiming that survival after death may be natural.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quant...after-death-2/
That's scary. There are a phenomenal number of consciousness floating around out there in the alternate-verse. Imagine it. All those dead baby consciousnesses, all the Alzheimer's and dementia consciousnesses, all the serial killer and child molester consciousnesses... Pretty sickening and tragic.

I hope he's wrong.
marplots is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 02:36 PM   #104
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,395
Isn't is couscous that survives death? I'm stew it is.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:21 PM   #105
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I am posting an article on the theory that Quantum Physics shows it is possible that consciousness survives death and may go to another universe.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quant...after-death-2/
Just no.

First off, I don't think there's a conclusive definition for what consciousness is, how it works, and what, if any physical properties it has.

Second, the link just refers to the same New Age mumbo jumbo from the 90s on this subject with no scientific reference. If some physicist had a workable theory it would have an equation or set of equations, and a complex, thorough explanation of the thesis.

There ain't one.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:28 PM   #106
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,587
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I have no problem with the idea that ghosts might turn out to be natural after all.

But no amount of pretended semantic confusion or imagined semantic loopholes will rehabilitate the current unphysical narrative for ghosts.
This we can agree on!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 07:31 PM   #107
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,587
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
It totally depends on what you define as 'natural'.
The phenomena in quantum mechanics can be classified as paranormal (when there is the will to do it).

When you define 'nature' as 'govern by laws', the probability nature of the phenomenon of quantum mechanics can be seen as 'supernatural'.

It's all depending on our definitions of the concepts.
No.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 08:07 PM   #108
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,786
I know I'm a broken record, but I used to believe all of this stuff; bigfoot, Nessie, demons, etc. The problem - as I see it - has been the lack of progress in the collection of objective data for any of them. For all of the "paranormal research" teams out there in the dark talking to empty rooms you'd think there would have been a breakthrough in at least some aspect of any of those phenomenon...but there has not been.

If this was a soccer game the ball would still be in the center of the field.

Since my interest in this subject began in the 1970s Night Vision technology has evolved 14 or 15 generations, IR camera tech has improved to quality HD in just 9 years, and FLIR has become fantastic on the mid-price level devices. Not to mention microphone technology and digital recorders getting better and smaller. Throw in the current batch of motion detectors and you have all the technology to catch at least one of these things on camera.

Instead, you have people running around with a variety of EMF detectors, not knowing how they work, and not knowing what exactly they're detecting.

My favorite moments in any ghost hunting show is when they say that they saw a ghost but it wasn't captured on camera. Yet they never ask why. It's the same reasons psychics never evaluate why a prediction was wrong. These failures get dismissed with a wave of the hand. No other observational science has this luxury, nor would it be acceptable. Scientists put as much effort into understanding their failures as they do successful experiments because that's where real progress is made.

For example, look at the results the BBC got with their "stealth cams" disguised as animals for the new "Planet Earth" series. They're filming activities never seen before because it wasn't possible until now, but paranormal investigation is stuck in 2005. Worse, there is a submarket of products for paranormal research hawking devices where there is no independent evaluation to show that they even work.

The Spirit Box ticks me off. The device scans the radio spectrum allowing spirits to chose words to communicate. Really? How did they test that technology? To start with - you need a spirit/ghost that's a reliable communicator, and you can see why this might be a problem. Until you can talk to a ghost on a dependable basis you can't develop technology to talk to other ghosts...or am I missing something?

This underlines the other big problem: Believers have embraced their own version of science, one were wanting something to be true is enough to justify that thing's existence, and thus they develop little black boxes to reinforce their beliefs instead of using neutral technologies which provide honest results. So it doesn't matter if the phenomenon is real or not because the believers point to their quackery and hoax tech as proof, and then wonder why skeptics are so cruel.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 11:44 PM   #109
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,202
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I am posting an article on the theory that Quantum Physics shows it is possible that consciousness survives death and may go to another universe. I considered starting another thread for it, but I do not know enough about it to host a thread, so it fits into this thread by claiming that survival after death may be natural.

http://www.theearthchild.co.za/quant...after-death-2/
Lanza is a stem cell biologist who is clearly an expert in his field, but he is no more qualified to pontificate on the nature of consciousness or the implications of quantum physics than you or I. He is, of course, perfectly entitled to speculate wildly on these subjects, but please don't assume that his expertise in a totally different field makes those wild speculations superior to those of anyone else.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2017, 11:49 PM   #110
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,202
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I know I'm a broken record, but I used to believe all of this stuff; bigfoot, Nessie, demons, etc. The problem - as I see it - has been the lack of progress in the collection of objective data for any of them. For all of the "paranormal research" teams out there in the dark talking to empty rooms you'd think there would have been a breakthrough in at least some aspect of any of those phenomenon...but there has not been.

If this was a soccer game the ball would still be in the center of the field.

Since my interest in this subject began in the 1970s Night Vision technology has evolved 14 or 15 generations, IR camera tech has improved to quality HD in just 9 years, and FLIR has become fantastic on the mid-price level devices. Not to mention microphone technology and digital recorders getting better and smaller. Throw in the current batch of motion detectors and you have all the technology to catch at least one of these things on camera.

Instead, you have people running around with a variety of EMF detectors, not knowing how they work, and not knowing what exactly they're detecting.

My favorite moments in any ghost hunting show is when they say that they saw a ghost but it wasn't captured on camera. Yet they never ask why. It's the same reasons psychics never evaluate why a prediction was wrong. These failures get dismissed with a wave of the hand. No other observational science has this luxury, nor would it be acceptable. Scientists put as much effort into understanding their failures as they do successful experiments because that's where real progress is made.

For example, look at the results the BBC got with their "stealth cams" disguised as animals for the new "Planet Earth" series. They're filming activities never seen before because it wasn't possible until now, but paranormal investigation is stuck in 2005. Worse, there is a submarket of products for paranormal research hawking devices where there is no independent evaluation to show that they even work.

The Spirit Box ticks me off. The device scans the radio spectrum allowing spirits to chose words to communicate. Really? How did they test that technology? To start with - you need a spirit/ghost that's a reliable communicator, and you can see why this might be a problem. Until you can talk to a ghost on a dependable basis you can't develop technology to talk to other ghosts...or am I missing something?

This underlines the other big problem: Believers have embraced their own version of science, one were wanting something to be true is enough to justify that thing's existence, and thus they develop little black boxes to reinforce their beliefs instead of using neutral technologies which provide honest results. So it doesn't matter if the phenomenon is real or not because the believers point to their quackery and hoax tech as proof, and then wonder why skeptics are so cruel.
Ghost hunting is a textbook case of what Richard Feynman dubbed cargo cult science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 09:57 AM   #111
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I know I'm a broken record, but I used to believe all of this stuff…
A most absorbing post. Thanks.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 10:14 AM   #112
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,587
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I know I'm a broken record, but I used to believe all of this stuff; bigfoot, Nessie, demons, etc. The problem - as I see it - has been the lack of progress in the collection of objective data for any of them. For all of the "paranormal research" teams out there in the dark talking to empty rooms you'd think there would have been a breakthrough in at least some aspect of any of those phenomenon...but there has not been.

If this was a soccer game the ball would still be in the center of the field.

Since my interest in this subject began in the 1970s Night Vision technology has evolved 14 or 15 generations, IR camera tech has improved to quality HD in just 9 years, and FLIR has become fantastic on the mid-price level devices. Not to mention microphone technology and digital recorders getting better and smaller. Throw in the current batch of motion detectors and you have all the technology to catch at least one of these things on camera.

Instead, you have people running around with a variety of EMF detectors, not knowing how they work, and not knowing what exactly they're detecting.

My favorite moments in any ghost hunting show is when they say that they saw a ghost but it wasn't captured on camera. Yet they never ask why. It's the same reasons psychics never evaluate why a prediction was wrong. These failures get dismissed with a wave of the hand. No other observational science has this luxury, nor would it be acceptable. Scientists put as much effort into understanding their failures as they do successful experiments because that's where real progress is made.

For example, look at the results the BBC got with their "stealth cams" disguised as animals for the new "Planet Earth" series. They're filming activities never seen before because it wasn't possible until now, but paranormal investigation is stuck in 2005. Worse, there is a submarket of products for paranormal research hawking devices where there is no independent evaluation to show that they even work.

The Spirit Box ticks me off. The device scans the radio spectrum allowing spirits to chose words to communicate. Really? How did they test that technology? To start with - you need a spirit/ghost that's a reliable communicator, and you can see why this might be a problem. Until you can talk to a ghost on a dependable basis you can't develop technology to talk to other ghosts...or am I missing something?

This underlines the other big problem: Believers have embraced their own version of science, one were wanting something to be true is enough to justify that thing's existence, and thus they develop little black boxes to reinforce their beliefs instead of using neutral technologies which provide honest results. So it doesn't matter if the phenomenon is real or not because the believers point to their quackery and hoax tech as proof, and then wonder why skeptics are so cruel.

This is clearly one of those areas/situations where one MUST be cruel to be kind!!!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 03:08 PM   #113
Scorpion
Muse
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 557
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Lanza is a stem cell biologist who is clearly an expert in his field, but he is no more qualified to pontificate on the nature of consciousness or the implications of quantum physics than you or I. He is, of course, perfectly entitled to speculate wildly on these subjects, but please don't assume that his expertise in a totally different field makes those wild speculations superior to those of anyone else.
He is not alone in the belief consciousness survives death. Sir Roger Penrose who worked on black hole theory with Steven Hawking, also supports the theory.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 03:13 PM   #114
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,786
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Ghost hunting is a textbook case of what Richard Feynman dubbed cargo cult science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science
Yes, it's a lot like that now. When I started ghost hunting it was based on the UCLA parapsychology model where you interview the witnesses separately, ask them object, non-paranormal questions about themselves, and spend a lot of time in the library looking at old news papers, and history of the land where the house/structure is located.

In the process I learned a lot about plumbing and carpentry. I also learned that some people just want their house to be haunted, and aren't interested in non-supernatural explanations.

10 years ago I went back to college to take Oceanography, Marine Biology, Geology, and Environmental Science among my class load, and the one thing I learned is that the scientific method works - period. I also learned that scientists have to ask the right questions to get reliable answers. The most underrated part of science for me was how to create an experiment which will yield usable, repeatable data. When a thesis gets tossed out its often because the experiment was set up wrong, and when other scientists recreate the experiment they find all kinds of problems, and then it's back to the drawing board.

Ghost hunters are running wild with exotic-looking technology and claiming results without any baseline testing to confirm any of it works reliably.

EMF detectors, if they work the way ghost hunters want to believe, should also work on living people. Yet search and rescue teams don't use them in the cases of building collapse to locate folks trapped in the rubble...because they don't work that way. So how can you say your EMF meter is registering a ghost when it can't find the magnetic field of a living person?

Meanwhile, hunters have successfully used Game Finders for years, and now even have noise amplifying headphones to help locate deer in the dark. Neither of these shows up in the ghost hunter or bigfoot hunter's gear box. Instead of looking for proven technology to assist in locating hidden beings/creatures/whatever they are using the wrong equipment because they get the results they're looking for, and not objective data.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 7th March 2017 at 03:15 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 03:41 PM   #115
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,791
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I'd imagine you used a a long exposure. That's the simplest method.
It is now. In the days of film my camera could be set to allow multiple exposures without advancing the film. Take one pic of the hall with kids in place, then take another pic on the same frame as the first without kids.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 05:24 PM   #116
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,587
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
He is not alone in the belief consciousness survives death. Sir Roger Penrose who worked on black hole theory with Steven Hawking, also supports the theory.
The problem with that is it is not a scientific theory nor is it a testable scientific hypothesis!!!!
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2017, 11:34 PM   #117
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,202
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
He is not alone in the belief consciousness survives death. Sir Roger Penrose who worked on black hole theory with Steven Hawking, also supports the theory.
Last I heard Penrose's speculations about the quantum nature of consciousness (which are certainly interesting, if currently unsupported) did not include the hypothesis, let alone "belief", that consciousness survives death, so I'd appreciate a cite for that.

In any case Penrose is also entitled to speculate as wildly as he likes about subjects outside his area of expertise, but the fact that he is a scientist does not make those speculations a theory.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 04:56 AM   #118
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
He is not alone in the belief consciousness survives death. Sir Roger Penrose who worked on black hole theory with Steven Hawking, also supports the theory.
You are well surrounded by impressive scholars who are wrong.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 09:21 AM   #119
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
Those darn skeptics, waiting for evidence before they accept something...
I'd rather have them accept all of my claims immediately, and make them prove me wrong instead of doing my own thinking for myself.
Thinking is hard work, but believing is easy.
"You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true..."
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2017, 09:22 AM   #120
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by rakovsky View Post
Loch Ness monster and dinosaurs in Congo are going to be written off by hardcore Skeptics even if they don't "contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about", such "bits of reality" including the "bit of reality" (scientific community's teaching) that large land reptiles and plesiosaurs couldn't survive the ice age.
Why are you pretending to overlook the utter lack of any concrete, objective, non-anecdotal evidence at all?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.