Sounds of ghosts from abandoned insane asylum

[Magical Realist]

I just remembered from the orbs thread... remember how heated things got when Occam's Razor was mentioned? lol!

Yeah..and they were the ones claiming a haunting was just the coincidental collusion of a dozen quirks, like camera flare, knocking pipes, bad wiring, drafts, brain glitches, falling stuff, misrecorded voices, and not to mention the ever deceptive paranormal investigators who spend all night in empty bldgs just so they can fake all this shit and pass it off as genuine. That's not occam's razor. That's a dozen excuses to deny the one obvious and consistent cause--ghosts!

 

[Balerion]

Google them moron. Ofcourse they're departures from the norm.

Read what I wrote. I never said they weren't departures from the norm. I said they weren't such departures from the norm as ghosts. In other words, you need make big proof for ghost.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah..and they were the ones claiming a haunting was just the coincidental collusion of a dozen quirks, like camera flare, knocking pipes, bad wiring, drafts, brain glitches, falling stuff, and not to mention the ever deceptive paranormal investigators who spend all night in empty bldgs just so they can fake all this shit and pass it off as genuine. That's not occam's razor. That's a dozen excuses to deny the one obvious and consistent cause--ghosts!

Of course that's Occam's Razor. That those involved are either mistaken or lying is a much simpler explanation than ghosts being an actual phenomenon.

 

[Magical Realist]

Of course that's Occam's Razor. That those involved are either mistaken or lying is a much simpler explanation than ghosts being an actual phenomenon.

Not if ghosts exist as all the evidence really shows. That changes everything. Which is why you can't even entertain their possibility.

 

[Magical Realist]

...

 

[wegs]

Of course that's Occam's Razor. That those involved are either mistaken or lying is a much simpler explanation than ghosts being an actual phenomenon.

Accusing people of lying is too simplistic.
Really? Lol

 

[Magical Realist]

Accusing people of lying is too simplistic.
Really? Lol

Not to mention psychotically conspiratorial. Balerion would have us believe there is this vast underground movement out there to try and fool sciency smart people like himself that there are really ghosts. Thousands of volunteer paranormal societies springing up all over the world intentionally perpetrating this hoax just because...well..just because they're mean and have nothing else better to do. Dozens of TV shows and thousands of websites funded and operated by shady people just trying to deceive the gullible public for the hell of it. It's really a desperately paranoid mindset. An exaggerated attempt to keep his world nice and logical and controllable. Because one simply can't have unknown entities sneaking around in dark deserted buildings changing the natural order of things.

 

[Balerion]

Accusing people of lying is too simplistic.
Really? Lol

What do you mean "too" simplistic?

Not to mention psychotically conspiratorial. Balerion would have us believe there is this vast underground movement out there to try and fool sciency smart people like himself that there are really ghosts. Thousands of volunteer paranormal societies springing up all over the world intentionally perpetrating this hoax just because...well..just because they're mean and have nothing else better to do. Dozens of TV shows and thousands of websites funded and operated by shady people just trying to deceive the gullible public for the hell of it. It's really a desperately paranoid mindset. An exaggerated attempt to keep his world nice and logical and controllable.

Of course you have to rely on a straw man. My actual argument is too strong, so you'll just pretend I've accused every single paramoron in the world of being a liar.

 

[wegs]

When applying Occam's Razor, you would have to look at the evidence being provided by the paranormal "experts," and you put that against all the "common" or mundane explanations ...and choose the simplest route to find your answer. Accusing someone of lying is not evidence and frankly, is lazy.

"They're all liars!" "Ok, case closed."

But, you knew that already, Balerion.

 

[Balerion]

When applying Occam's Razor, you would have to look at the evidence being provided by the paranormal "experts," and you put that against all the "common" or mundane explanations ...and choose the simplest route to find your answer. Accusing someone of lying is not evidence and frankly, is lazy.

"They're all liars!" "Ok, case closed."

But, you knew that already, Balerion.

Looks like it's remedial logic time.

Human beings lie. They lie all the time.

Human beings are wrong. They are wrong all the time.

Human beings compound mistakes by lying. They compound mistakes by lying all the time.

These are typical, human characteristics. Suggesting that these phenomena are better explained by the fallibility of humans is a far simpler explanation than the suggestion that there is a whole dimension of existence that we are not only overlooking, but are being interacted with in malevolent and malicious ways.

 

[wegs]

Frankly, Occam's Razor is always going to lead someone (especially a skeptic) to picking the practical/commonly chosen theory over the paranormal one.

Example: You and a friend stand side by side in a deserted warehouse rumored to be haunted. You both take pictures of the same objects, using different cameras. Orbs that are "unusual" appear in both your pics and your friends. The simplest answer will be...both your lenses were dirty OR there were dust particles in the room OR both pics picked up moisture droplets.

Bla bla

Occam's Razor sucks when you try to use it with unexplainable phenomenon. It's fine for ...hey, do you hear galloping in the distance? Yeah, I bet it's a zebra approaching! Nah, it's a horse most likely.

Chances are, it's a horse.

Now, I'm being over simplistic, but just saying. Occam's Razor is typically going to lead you to the common answer, which leaves the Paranormalist out in the cold.

 

[wegs]

Looks like it's remedial logic time.

Human beings lie. They lie all the time.

Human beings are wrong. They are wrong all the time.

Human beings compound mistakes by lying. They compound mistakes by lying all the time.

These are typical, human characteristics. Suggesting that these phenomena are better explained by the fallibility of humans is a far simpler explanation than the suggestion that there is a whole dimension of existence that we are not only overlooking, but are being interacted with in malevolent and malicious ways.

Yeah, I guess you could toss "they're lying" into the hat. Human beings are wrong and mistaken all the time, too true. But that's not lying.

 

[Balerion]

Frankly, Occam's Razor is always going to lead someone (especially a skeptic) to picking the practical/commonly chosen theory over the paranormal one.

And why do you think that is, wegs? It's because there has been no evidence to suggest the paranormal actually exists.

Occam's Razor sucks when you try to use it with unexplainable phenomenon. It's fine for ...hey, do you hear galloping in the distance? Yeah, I bet it's a zebra approaching! Nah, it's a horse most likely.

I see. So it's "Let's employ Occam's Razor unless it disagrees with our assertion. Then it's useless."

Chances are, it's a horse.

Now, I'm being over simplistic, but just saying. Occam's Razor is typically going to lead you to the common answer, which leaves the Paranormalist out in the cold.

You're not just being oversimplistic, you're wrong. If you live in an area zebras inhabit, then Occam's Razor wouldn't bring you to the assumption that the equine figure in the distance is a horse.

 

[Balerion]

Yeah, I guess you could toss "they're lying" into the hat. Human beings are wrong and mistaken all the time, too true. But that's not lying.

Lying is as ubiquitous a human characteristic as being wrong. That's the point.

 

[wegs]

And why do you think that is, wegs? It's because there has been no evidence to suggest the paranormal actually exists.

Similar to social sciences, the paranormal shouldn't be classified as an 'exact science.'

I see. So it's "Let's employ Occam's Razor unless it disagrees with our assertion. Then it's useless."

On occasion, an unlikely explanation can be expected to be true sometimes. (One needs to be open minded to that possibilty, based on a whole host of circumstances that could lead one to such a conclusion.) However, if you treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an absolute rule (which it's not always meant to be) and use it as a label for denying any and every paranormal claim, no matter how potentially valid, then it will end up being a useless exercise. ''Simple'' is a relative term even when applying Occam's Razor, and one's bias towards the paranormal can sometimes cause a skeptic to not be open to all the possibilities in front of him, despite how plausible they might be. IOW, skeptics need to leave their bias out of the equation, when applying Occam's Razor.

You're not just being oversimplistic, you're flat-out wrong. If you live in an area zebras inhabit, then Occam's Razor wouldn't bring you to the assumption that the equine figure in the distance is a horse.

I hope you're kidding. Should I have indicated geographic location in that scenario? You knew what I meant. lol

Lying is as ubiquitous a human characteristic as being wrong. That's the point.

I'm not disputing that, but how would you enter it in as evidence using Occam's Razor?

 

[wegs]

As an aside...

No one really knows with certainty (or not) as to the existence of a paranormal 'world,' but there are interesting cases out there that deserve some meaningful dialogue and exploration, and shouldn't be immediately dismissed, simply because they're not verifiable using common instruments and explanations. If we choose to apply Occam's Razor, then we have to be fair about it, is all I'm saying.

 

[Balerion]

Similar to social sciences, the paranormal shouldn't be classified as an 'exact science.'

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

On occasion, an unlikely explanation can be expected to be true sometimes. (One needs to be open minded to that possibilty, based on a whole host of circumstances that could lead one to such a conclusion.) However, if you treat Occam’s Razor as if it were an absolute rule (which it's not always meant to be) and use it as a label for denying any and every paranormal claim, no matter how potentially valid, then it will end up being a useless exercise. ''Simple'' is a relative term even when applying Occam's Razor, and one's bias towards the paranormal can sometimes cause a skeptic to not be open to all the possibilities in front of him, despite how plausible they might be. IOW, skeptics need to leave their bias out of the equation, when applying Occam's Razor.

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

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 hope you're kidding. Should I have indicated geographic location in that scenario? You knew what I meant. lol

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'm not disputing that, but how would you enter it in as evidence using Occam's Razor?

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.

 

[Magical Realist]

The Rosenheim Poltergeist: Another well-documented case

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2008/12/...-looking-back-at-the-most-documented-haunting

Note the same pattern: electrical flukes, moving furniture, moving objects, and the strange connection to a young woman who worked there.

 

[Magical Realist]

Read what I wrote, moron. I never said they weren't departures from the norm. I said they weren't such departures from the norm as ghosts. In other (simpler, for you) words, you need make big proof for ghost.

Actually ball lightning and rogue waves ARE more out of the norm than ghosts. At least there's places you can go where there is a good probability you will experience paranormal activity. With ball lightning and rogue waves there isn't. Overall there is more evidence for ghosts than there is for ball lightning and rogue waves. And yet we totally believe in the latter while rejecting the former. Why? Because we just know there can't be any ghosts out there. How would we possibly know something like that? We don't. It just doesn't jibe with our current materialist paradigm. So we deny and deny and deny. All in the holy name of Science.

 

[Magical Realist]

just show me a piece of purported evidence for something paranormal that cannot be explained away by misunderstanding, mistake in memory, or outright fabrication.

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?"

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?

Depends on your view of reality. If you assume reality automatically excludes the possibility of paranormal and other unexplained phenomena, then sure, it IS more likely all people who say they have witnessed it are lying. Even though there remain problems with how so many people can be so consistent in their lies or what their motives might be for lying. If otoh you admit you don't know reality can't include the paranormal, then there's no basis for deciding its probability or improbability. You go strictly by the evidence on a case by case basis. And in each case you rule out all mundane causes first before concluding paranormal activity. That's what standard science does. It doesn't make metaphysical assumptions about what can or can't be.