Magical Realists Magical Reality

No. The video contains eyewitness accounts of an unknown phenomenon, nothing more. Just because the person observing it doesn't know what it is doesn't mean it is "alien" or "paranormal", it is merely unknown.

You're just mad that you can't get your way...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just a clarification: the eyewitnesses are not interviewed in the video.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed- my mistake - the video contains nothing of any actual merit overall it would seem!

 

Are you surprised?

 

I'm surprised that MR still seems surprised when nobody buys his BS. It's like it's his first day here or something.

 

As I've already stated, people who deny the very possibility of the paranormal will always deny the evidence when presented. It's what they do. I even posted a thread once asking people whether they'd believe in a ghost if it appeared right in front of them. Everybody denied even that, preferring to question their own sanity. So no, skeptical denialism doesn't surprise me at all. It's a disingenuous form of personal faithheld belief masquerading as scientific objectivity. But at least I have put the evidence out there, as I have consistently in all these threads, allowing truly objective viewers to know the facts and make their own judgments on the matter.

“There are some members of the sceptics groups who clearly believe that they know the right answer prior to enquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion” – Susan Blackmore

“The original definition of sceptic was a person who questions all beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today’s common definition of a sceptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion.” – author unknown.

“They claim that their behavior is “scepticism” but in reality they know nothing about the true meaning of scepticism nor practice it since they apply no scepticism to their own beliefs or to the status quo but in fact have a total blind spot to them. Pyrrho, the founder of “Scepticism”, intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment. I’ve never trusted sceptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility.”

“They tend to block honest inquiry, in my opinion. Most of them are not agnostic toward claims of the paranormal; they are out to knock them. [...] When an experiment of the paranormal meets their requirements, then they move the goal posts. Then, if the experiment is reputable, they say it’s a mere anomaly.”====http://truthfall.com/pseudoscepticism/

 

Maybe you should try presenting actual "evidence" for a change, then?

 

What evidence would satisfy you?

 

Considering this is a SCIENCE forum, I'll give you three guesses.

 

Go ahead then. Describe precisely the kind of evidence you would accept for a paranormal occurrence.

Oh and last time I checked the "Science" here has its own section. The other sections including "Technology", "Philosophy", "World", "Life", and "On The Fringe" do not fall into that category.

 

Please cite the thread because I'm quite sure you are misrepresenting it. In particular, I wouldn't have said that. Regardless, fortunately for us we've never been caught in that catch-22, since as you have acknowledged, no such quality evidence exists for us to deny. So it's only a hypothetical catch-22, not a real one. As such, it has no bearing on your failure to meet any/every standard of proof.

Since you are the one trying to prove something, it is incumbent upon you to provide the evidence and there are likely quite a number of different types of evidence that would be acceptable depending on the particulars of what you are trying to prove. But the idea of ghosts is far too vague for us to list all things that we'd consider quality evidence. But if by "kind", you mean what standard it should comply with, you've already been provided that.

For a specific but by no means unique or comprehensive example: I would probably consider a videotaped, sit-down interview with a ghost and living relative, who revealed personal details that only the ghost and a living relative could know (yet be able to prove it), with multiple, independent, scholarly witnesses who didn't know each other or the interviewer/interviewee and examined the setup to be compelling. Indeed, if we could really communicate with ghosts, it would be a huge help for legal proceedings such as murder trials and estate/will issues.

[edit] Another good and easily provided set of evidence could come from scientific scrutiny of John Edwards (or other mediums/psychics). His show suggests a very high success rate in talking to dead people and as such, any middle school kid who just learned the scientific method should be able to set up a scientific test of his powers. Of course, John Edwards - nor most other claimed mediums/psychics - would never submit to scientific scrutiny. The profitability of the status quo is too high to take the risk.

Not relevant, even if true (I'll let a mod comment on that, except to note that the "On the Fring" section includes the "Alternative Theories" forum, which by definition must be scientific). You are not entitled to set the burden of proof level for yourself when you are trying to convince others of something. The people who you are trying to convince set it. Moreover, you have clearly indicated that you believe your burden of proof level is roughly zero, so you wouldn't choose *any* standard, given the choice. You just believe what you want to believe and want us to believe it because you tell us to. Few people will ever accept that and certainly no one who posesses any measurable brainpower.

 

Here's the issue - with modern technology, it is so easy to FAKE evidence like this that it's hard to say what would be acceptable. A video of a person walking "thru" a ghost, or a ghost walking thru a wall? Far too easy to fake! Hence the problem... the recording SOURCE has to be reputable as well.

 

That's why I suggested that in addition to the scene being recorded, (and, of course, the original, unedited recording and recording device being made available for study), multiple, independent witnesses of what is recorded in the video would be needed.

The issue with this for most ghost stories is that they tend to be from lone witnesses (which suggests something in and of itself...). However, it should not, in principle, to be out of the question to have such a high quality of evidence.

Despite the current ease of fabricating evidence, science somehow still manages to get by.

 

Thing is, science very rarely, if ever, accepts evidence from a singular source - typically, if the evidence cannot be duplicated, it is assumed that something is wrong; either accident or intentional.

 

Define paranormal.

 

Anything that is up to the expected standard of scientific evidence, at the very least.

 

More hotspots for this phenomena than I had known. What could they be?

 

Well we know for a fact that they're not ghosts, flying saucers, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster.

Do you actually want to discuss the video, or do you just want people to say "OMG Magical Realist was right all along! They ARE real!"?

 

So what do you think they are?

Right about what? I have no idea what they are.