Can you suggest a falsifiable test? If you can't, then it's not folly to dismiss the claim.
What are Ghost/spirits made of?
- Thread starter JordanTredray
- Start date
true but an opposite claim is also folly. dismissing 'claims' is the key.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps
dismissing and denying have 2 significantly different meanings.
Which is most likely why I used the word "deny" in post #18
.......................
personally, I usually mostly dismiss most untestable claims(except during some of the quiet times when I will pull them out of memory and run them down via pathways of logic).
( jiggly videos, fuzzy pictures and undefined sounds just don't do it for me)
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is worth repeating.
No rational person will claim to have knowledge to deny the existence of ghosts, or God or UFOs. Though they may believe these things don't exist, they know they can't defend their belief with evidence.
But a rational person may dismiss these things, essentially declaring ''insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. Bigger fish to fry." They might even go farther and say "The best theory going is that they are made up, by way of human error." This does not mean thy don't exist; it simply means the onus is on the claimant to produce convincing evidence before there is any point in examining the phenomena.
no, there doesn't have to be convincing evidence. the fact people have such experiences is evidence enough to be examined.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What do you think 'convincing evidence' means? It means convincing to the person or organization who is deciding whether or not to study it.
Some will be convinced that it's worth studying, some will not.
In either case, both actions hinge on their opinions of what constitutes convincing evidence to them.
And the fact that people can lie about having such experiences means better, more convincing evidence is required.
If if if it was FACT that WOULD automatically be convincing evidence
So I guess it is not fact
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I'd say it's fact that people have the experiences. The interpretation of the experience is generally what is in-question.If if if it was FACT that WOULD automatically be convincing evidence
So I guess it is not fact
Witnesses who have had an emotionally wracking experience don't like to accept "I felt a cold wind blow through me - but in the light of day, I realize it was just a cold wind." as an explanation.
I would even question the experience has been had in many of those reported
Also just as a personal observation (bias?) the reported experiences seem to cluster around certain persons like iron filings around a magnet
In UFO abductions quite a few seem to be repeat offenders. I could accept may be the aliens are checking on what ever it is they are doing to the human Guinea pig. But I doubt it
Apart from the self-styled ghostbusters many of those who have experiences seem to have polybeliefs UFO ghost karma as well as the latest conspiracy
Further personal if I had something I could not explain I would welcome a mudane explanation over " you have been probed" or "you were possessed by demons"
Disappointed I wouldn't get a book deal but relieved I could throw away my tin foil hat
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There's no doubt that there is some degree of fraudulence, but I'm sure a large portion of reports are sincere.
Their sincerity doesn't make the reports objectively compelling, but it also doesn't make the witnesses dishonest.
uh no, the reports themselves don't make them objectively compelling but what does anyone here know what is compelling about these subjects when they dismiss the ones that are anyways.
I mean, I've seen MR post a well-documented case where it was found that this particular woman was mostly causing the poltergeists herself. it strongly indicated it had to do with her own psyche, or what she had absorbed or experienced. there is a lot of implications to this in how powerful the mind can work, outside of conventional ways at times. no one even picked up on the fact this was one of those compelling cases and instead it had the usual rhetoric of naysayers and just passed right on by. why? because they didn't care or knew what the fuk they were talking about either. they just assumed it is all bunk because that is what they have been taught all 'paranormal' is.
this is just one example because they don't all fit this formula either. as far as 'poltergeists', it is pretty much understood now by paranormal investigators that usually it is caused by a person themselves or by another. it is an offshoot of whatever is going on mentally or internally.
so why should the likes of MR be punished?
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I don't imagine you have a direct line to the truth, wherein you can better distinguish between mundane events and the real thing than others can. So, how others make the split is no better than your own. Your judgment is misplaced.
Sorry, you're saying MR posted an account that turned out to be fake, and you're criticizing others for concurring?
Again, you have your opinion. How is it better than someone else's?
You're trying to double-dip. You're disagreeing with their take (which carries no less weight than your own) and then you are also criticizing them because their take is different from yours. Is that a crime too?
So, fake. I don't see the problem.
What does this thread have to do with MR? This is not his thread.
the naysayers don't know the truth any better either. the difference is there is no respect for the subject at all. it is based on an assumption it is all not real or impossible.
No, this is exactly what i'm referring to. it did not turn out to be 'fake'. this is a disingenuous conclusion because it was not a 'ghost' in the sense of the definition of a being that is deceased. it is still paranormal occurrence.
No, the point is the likes of MR do not deserve to be banned when counterpoints are just as much guessing in the dark whether even if they believe they are right. that's just bias.
It is not fake. I don't believe you are this obtuse. paranormal is what occurs outside of conventional manifestation. this is why it's investigated. it was not imagination, it was occurring.
because they don't deserve to be banned and should be allowed to participate in threads such as this which they have interest since no one else is more qualified or knowledgeable or more experienced in these matters either.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The onus is on the claimant. They are required by the the rules to back up their claims with evidence.
You said they caused the events themselves. So no poltergeist.
But MR claims not to be simply guessing in the dark. He claims to be sure. Yet he has no more access to any of the evidence than anyone else. It alters his conclusion, but does not alter the underlying facts (or non-facts). He oversteps his assertion.
Further, he has freely demonstrated himself to be quite naive, and in this particular relevant field. This has torpedoed his credibility. How can any conscientious reader take the word of someone who openly admits to complete trust in 3rd party accounts of strangers when it comes to reports of paranormal?
Point of order: I did not bring MR into this discussion. Birch kicked that door open. I would not normally drag a specific member's name into a discussion unless it was already involving them. If anyone wants that door closed again, that's not on me.
Yes. It is bias in favour of skepticism. As it should be in any science-based venue.
You said they caused the events themselves. So no poltergeist.
It's not about qualification, it's about defensibility of stance.
A general rule: A moderate stance is always easier to defend than an extreme stance.
An argument that allows for more plausible explanations "it could be any of these mundane options"
is far more defensible than
an argument that demands the exclusion of explanations "it must be this option I claim".
The onus is on the claimant to make his case sufficiently to exclude mundane explanations. Almost impossible to do without some ectoplasm in-hand.
So they run into trouble when they insist, despite critical analysis and healthy skepticism, on making indefensible assertions. And that's not condoned by this forum.
Last edited:
this is a fringe subject and your point of view is obstinate. poltergeists are loosely defined because it is not yet known what they are. ghost or supernatural is a term to identify that which is incorporeal which manifestations outside of yourself (even if caused by a human) is still within the realm of paranormal.
just as you have proven my point. you do not respect the subject and you do not think it's even real. it does not matter if someone presents a case and explains because even the unusual manifestations are disingenuously regarded as mundane, just as you have. Shadow figures/entities taking form which have an effect and orbs are not mundane explanations or occurences.
No, it's a lack of critical analysis on both sides because fringe is not served up to you completely on a silver platter, because it's on the fringe of investigation and knowledge. duh? the onus is not just on the claimant, it's also on the participants and audience to realize the parameters of the subject they are dealing.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is a meta-thread. The actual argument of the thread in-question is of no interest to me here; you can argue that in that thread. I am simply addressing to what you say, here, in this thread.
Your admission of the account is that she caused the events herself. So what does that have to do with MR's treatment?
So we must blindly accept any case that presents itself? You don't believe skepticism should apply? How do you rule out mistaken identities and fakers?
Obviously you do have your own threshold of 'mysterious versus resolved', you just take your own threshold for granted and assume everyone sees the world the same way you do. Are you just mad because other people place their threshold elsewhere?
Indeed. Which is why making strong assertions is ill-advised, yes? It is not a field that lends itself to "what MUST be".
Excellent point!
And they do indeed. They do realize the illusiveness of the subject, whereas MR does not.
By saying "it COULD be any of these other possibilities" as opposed to "it MUST be this exotic one".
Do you acknowledge that the parameters of ghost and spirit study does not lend itself to absolute sure conclusions? Or do you stand with MR, that in such a field of unsurities, you claim certainty?
Last edited:
I am not a sure about physical ghost , but why should you believe about dark energy and about dark matter, since you cannot provide one microgram of dark matter ?
While not being able to produce in physical material form Dark Matter the affects can be recorded and checked and verified and reproducible
Unlike ghost
NT News today 25/10/17 local cartoonist Wicking