• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What would convince YOU of something "paranormal"?

Learjet

Thinker
Learjet
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
173
As a skeptical fan of ghost hunting, I sometimes ask myself what it would take for me to accept something as paranormal.

I'm constantly amazed at the inane experiments that "paranormal investigators" or "ghost hunters" do to convince themselves that they have a ghost. Let me list a few off the top of my head.

The use of EMF meters.
Laser spot thermometers.
Thermal cameras.
The flashlight trick.
EVP's.
"Make a sound".
"Move something".

All of which either happen by chance or the equipment misused / misinterpreted. They seem to be willing to accept a positive from anything and everything.

So what would it take for me? I'm thinking levitation of an object that doesn't normally levitate or fly on it's own. Like a cup, chair, table, person - whatever. (In the absence of drafts, trickery or mental illness of course.) That's one thing anyway.

What would convince you guys?
 
Something that we could actually "see" and replicate. Something that we can ultimately refine, control, and use to produce technology.

The supposed replication of experiments whose results are nothing but statistical rejection of the null hypothesis just don't do the trick for me. They are interesting, point us in various directions, and possibly even demonstrate psi, but are just not enough for me.

Where's the person who really can just cause the ball to roll across the table from across the room?

~~ Paul
 
When someone walks out of the MDC $1M richer, I will begin to wonder if there may be something to this after all.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Where's the person who really can just cause the ball to roll across the table from across the room?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely Paul. I think what I want is quite simple, if such things actually exist. Just b able to produce detectable results, reliably under various controlled circumstances.

Ghosts, I don't know what you could do to prove them. Digital editing technology is truly impressive these days so it would be difficult to judge just on camera evidence. I think, just like with new species found in the wild, I would need someone to actually capture a ghost.
 
What would convince me? Reliable evidence.

I share the concern that Paul has expressed about parapsychological experiments that depend entirely on small statistical anomalies. Stats are very difficult to deal with and can be calculated multiple ways resulting in very different significances. At the very lest, there needs to be some consensus about what stat techniques should be used, and they should be used consistently. But that's just the start. It needs to go further. How much further? hard to say: we need to see what evidence arises and evaluate it from there.
 
Verifiable, repeatable results. Exactly what those results are would depend on the claim.
 
Lanzy said:
Flashlight Trick??:confused: What is that?
Click to expand...

You wedge it between your mattress and the bedframe, insert your peni-

*re-reads*

Oh. Thought you were asking about the Fleshlight trick. Never mind.
 
Reliable documentation without ridiculous assumptions. Too often, people say "I can't explain this, therefore it's paranormal," rather than saying, "I can't explain this, therefore I must expand my perception or attempt to further my understanding of it."

To absolutely convince me, I would want replicatable results, but that may run counter to the concept of what is or is not paranormal, and would obviously vary depending on the case.
 
extraordinary evidence to match the extraordinary claim.
 
Regarding "ghosts"... I agree all this silliness done on the TV shows is at best flimsy.

If the ghost is supposed to be the disembodied spirit of a human being, why can't it sit down at a table for a nice conversation? Presumably the ghost can manifest in some way... Why not a simple, "my name is Gerald Jones. I died in 1925 and I've been stuck here haunting this joint ever since. What a drag."
 
Learjet said:
What would convince you guys?
Click to expand...
Step 1: Document phenomenon
Step 2: Explain phenomenon
Step 3: Argue convincingly that the phenomenon is paranormal

Imo the problem usually sets in at step 3. Most people don't find that any phenomenon that is explained as a hallucination, illusion, coincidence or such like is paranormal.
This causes believers to argue that there also exists a superficially similar phenomenon that has a different explanation. To them step 1 or 2 is the problem.
That's a pity because working on step 3 would be much easier.
 
Learjet said:
As a skeptical fan of ghost hunting, I sometimes ask myself what it would take for me to accept something as paranormal.

I'm constantly amazed at the inane experiments that "paranormal investigators" or "ghost hunters" do to convince themselves that they have a ghost. Let me list a few off the top of my head.

The use of EMF meters.
Laser spot thermometers.
Thermal cameras.
The flashlight trick.
EVP's.
"Make a sound".
"Move something".

All of which either happen by chance or the equipment misused / misinterpreted. They seem to be willing to accept a positive from anything and everything.

So what would it take for me? I'm thinking levitation of an object that doesn't normally levitate or fly on it's own. Like a cup, chair, table, person - whatever. (In the absence of drafts, trickery or mental illness of course.) That's one thing anyway.

What would convince you guys?
Click to expand...

For me, personally, a visit from my grandmother who had in life as much belief in the supernatural as she did in god. Which is to say, none. And no "She wants to say she loves you!" nonsense either. She never would have wasted time with that sort of thing. All she has to do is finish the conversation we started about why her younger brother committed suicide. I've done some family research, I have the answer, but hearing it from her, in her words might convince me.

For the rest of the world - something that could be solidly measured, reproduced and documented an infinite number of times; and could not be explained by any type of visual or audio pareidolia.
 
if there is anything that will convince me that the paranormal exists, then it would cease to be considered paranormal, wouldn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom