"Ghosts" implausible.???

Discussion in 'UFOs, Ghosts and Monsters' started by cluelusshusbund, Sep 1, 2014.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    So would you say quantum entanglement is paranormal too? Does defying scientific explanation mean it will ALWAYS defy scientific explanation?

    Science doesn't work like that. It doesn't have to explain every aspect of a phenomena before acknowledging it exists. In fact science is all about studying the unknown phenomenon, forming theories, and testing those theories out to see if they explain it.

    Energy isn't "woo". And from what we know from actually studying the paranormal, it has something to do with the manipulation of energy. What's so wooish about that?

    What we need is a science of anomalous phenomena. This would rely more on field research than on replicable results. We need to empirically establish the reality of such phenomena even though they are unpredictable and unknown as to their causes. That would be a great first step imo.

    But science DOESN'T have an explanation for all these reports of paranormal experience beyond invalidating them as delusions or false memories. Until it takes eyewitness testimony as real evidence, it won't even begin to understand what's going on here.

    No..I don't need to have a perfectly sound scientific explanation before admitting a phenomena exists. All I need is empiricle evidence of the phenomena, as given in photos, videos, audios, and first-hand accounts. What I offer as possible ways for science to explain such phenomena requires theoretical work by minds greater than my own. But we don't discount the whole phenomena just because we don't have a scientific explanation for it yet.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Yet popular opinion can certainly alter the routes of funding, aiding or inhibiting the progression of science. Especially when the people in charge of allocating funding are quite simply, science-stupid.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Coud be... but for sure it was the most terrified ive been in my life.!!!

    I suspect that if we knew a bit more of the truth... thers lots of stuff stranger than "ghosts".!!!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    No - it may not be explainable, but it is repeatable and testable.
    No. There may be some things, however, that always do defy scientific explanation.
    I never said science does work like that. Science works by providing repeatable and testable theories. Merely quoting some possible philosophy (such as block time) as if it gives credence to "ghosts" while not providing a testable and repeatable theory does not make it scientific.
    Energy itself isn't "woo" but the way in which you would try and have it manipulated is rather on the "woo" side of things. There is simply no science there - unless you care to provide a testable theory?
    Indeed. The first thing is recording the actual phenomena accurately, in as much detail as possible, and without bias in any interpretation. One issue would be not necessarily in what is recorded about the phenomena, but what is not... as otherwise you are basing conclusions on what may only be part of the information.
    It does take it as evidence - merely anecdotal.
    What science won't do is give more credence to something with merely anecdotal evidence, that is untestable, unrepeatable, over something that has plethora of scientific backing behind it.
    We don't discount the phenomena - or at least not the experience - just the interpretation given to the phenomena - until there is sufficient scientific support for it.
  8. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    I suspect, based on the effusive evolution of protoplasmic lifeforms, that spacetime abounds with a plethora of other kinds of lifeforms at this very moment. Some barely more conscious than centipedes or starfish. Other more composite forms with levels of intelligence equal to our own. What we call paranormal is really just a broad generalization for these kinds of energy entities which have yet to be identified and studied. A ghost would only be one species among many of these etheric beings.
  9. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    If you haven't noticed most humans tend to use Light to see where they are going, this means either using windows to allow daylight in or using bulbs to illuminate a darkened room. One thing that isn't always considered is that light in it's emissions is done so at a frequency and sometimes those frequencies. Shadows occur where white light doesn't have 100% luminosity and not all frequencies are present (White in this instance referring to a light source of more than one frequency), this is usually termed "diffusion".

    Another analogy for you, the capturing of images on film. Most of the time film is capture at about 30 frames a second (although it is possible to be lesser frames per second and still give the appearance of being there) If the frequency of frame captures is altered.... (30,30,24,30,30 etc) it can cause an anomaly to appear.

    Lighting can work the same way, a change in the frequency because of the time of day (dawn/dusk), clouds (when dealing with natural light) and changes in electrical current (when dealing with bulbs) can effect if the frequency is constantly repetitive or alternating.
  10. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Interesting but irrelevant. People who photograph these things aren't playing around with the frequency of frame captures.
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Not intentionally - but unless you are a professional photographer, a lot of people wouldn't know the first thing about the settings on their cameras.
  12. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    I wasn't suggesting the photographer was altering the frequency, just the lighting in the room might alter from a change in the electrical input which could cause a change to the "Flicker Fusion".
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Or enough to know to change them either.
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Repeatable doesn't equate to explainable. We can repeat quantum entanglement a hundred times and still not know what causes it in terms of our known laws of physics. Therefore by your standards quantum entanglement doesn't exist. Conversely, nobody has any idea how to replicate the Big Bang in terms of the known laws of physics. And yet science is pretty sure it DID occur.

    Right..like maybe the paranormal. Consciousness may be another one.

    Block time certainly provides a framework in which to understand how past events can persist even though they appear to be gone from our own perspective. It was sufficiently relevant enough for Einstein himself to imply that a recently deceased friend of his might still be existing in some sense on that basis. See post #7.

    Facts are sufficient here. Every time you move your hand you manipulate energy. Every time you think a thought you manipulate energy. The manipulation of energy by conscious intent is a given fact of our experience. This isn't "woo" and I don't need a theory to confirm that this is so.

    Sure...a logical elimination of mundane causes such as occurs in most paranormal investigations.

    Most everything we know is anecdotal. Scientists' reports of their own experiments is anecdotal. It's just a matter of how much weight you are going to give a report instead of trying to dismiss it as error.

    Sure it will. Earthquake lights were once only anecdotally reported. Photos finally convinced scientists it was a real phenomena. This is something not exactly testable in a lab or replicable. Yet it is now accepted as a real phenomenon.

    Scientific support for what? The interpretation? Which interpretation of paranormal phenomena is science currently working towards providing sufficient scientific support for? The one that DOESN'T recognize the paranormal is a real phenomenon? I watched a National Geographic special on a scientific investigation of a haunted prison. The scientists' conclusions? There were real experiences of apparitions and feelings of dread going on there over the years, but it was being caused by low frequency sound vibrations. They even set up some speakers to simulate such. The glaring error here is where the hell are the low frequencies when the speakers AREN'T emitting them? They were positing an agency they had no evidence for to begin with.
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    If only that were true... trust me, as an IT Professional... when people don't know what things do, especially with technology... they tend to start pushing buttons to "see what happens"...

    Then, inevitably, they call me to come fix it because it's stopped doing what it was supposed to... lol
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Is there an actual button you can push on a camera or cell phone that changes the frequency of the frame capture?
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Well..an alteration of lighting might definitely show up as a dimmer room or even a dark room, but I don't see how it could cause discrete 3D forms to show up on camera.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    First - I have not stated that being scientifically unexplainable means that it does not exist. It means the explanation for the observation is not scientifically valid. But at no point have I said that what is observed does not exist. That is your strawman that you repeatedly throw up (or similar).
    Second - I seem to have confused you (for which I apologise) by saying that the paranormal is that which can not be scientifically explained. That is certainly one aspect to what is deemed paranormal. But the observations themselves are not paranormal: quantum entanglement is an observation. If one tried to explain it with "it is the hand of Woo making sure the things behave the same" then that explanation would be in the realm of paranormal, as it certainly does not conform to "scientifically explainable".
    But merely being unexplainable does not make it paranormal.
    So for any confusion there I apologise.

    One way to avoid such confusion is to think that if the explanation is based on empirical data and the scientific method then it is not paranormal. The Big Bang is such an explanation - and thus not paranormal.
    The paranormal covers many things, some of which will and some of which might not.
    Consciousness might, but the explanations we do come up with will be based on empirical data and the scientific method etc - and thus not paranormal.
    Sure, and when empirical observations and data that support scientific theories about it are established according to the scientific method, it might have legs.
    Indeed, but you can not equate that to energy manipulation by incorporeal/trans-dimensional beings - or whatever you want to call ghosts - and remain on the side of science - unless you can support your claims by the scientific method.
    Not sufficient - as you only eliminate the "mundane" causes you are aware of.
    Phenomena X: let's discount causes A, B and C... therefore it must be ghosts! But you have failed to discount D, E, F... etc. And unless you can show how you have eliminated ALL "mundane" causes, it is irrational to jump onto something that defies the current scientific understanding of the universe in favour of something unsupported.
    Scientists' reports are anecdotal, but if they are to be taken seriously they not only have to explain the tests they carried out but the equipment they used, the controls etc, and anyone who reads the report should be able to repeat their findings. If others repeat the experiment and do not get the same results, the finding of the initial report is weakened.
    Furthermore, don't confuse a mere theory with knowledge.
    You are confusing the observation with the interpretation.
    As I have previously stated, noone disputes the occurrence of what people interpret as "ghosts". It is the explanation of what is being observed that is in question. And with earthquake lights there are models and hypotheses.
    If one of those was that it was some grandiose display of ectoplasmic discharge, you'd be into the realm of the paranormal.
    When someone comes up with a scientific theory that is testable that explains such phenomena, they can test it and get support. If you want "ghosts" to be accepted then put forward a theory, have it tested.
    Or come up with a theory that logically and rationally concludes with "ghosts" (however you want to define them) from the currently available observations and experimental data.
    I didn't watch the program, so how do you expect me to comment? Are you suggesting that there would be no low frequency vibrations in a prison?
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Depends on the make/model of camera - several higher end ones, such as the ones amateur photographers trying to go professional would use, have manual settings for virtually every conceivable option on the camera - the Eos Rebel for example, has more buttons and options than you can shake a stick at
  20. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    So do cameras and cellphones generally have a button for this or not? Or is it only on high end cameras?
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    So then you admit paranormal phenomena exist?

    Yes contradicting what you said earlier does confuse people, as when you said: "It is why it is called "paranormal" - i.e. it defies scientific explanation." and now say "But merely being unexplainable does not make it paranormal." So in the attempt now to redefine the paranormal, are you now saying it IS explainable?

    The scientific method implies the ability to test a theory for the cause of the phenomenon. We don't seem to have that luxury with the paranormal. The activity occurs whenever it wants to, responding to conditions we aren't aware of, by means of processes we have yet to explain. So to insist that the phenomena be testable as some replicable theory again is flawed. We don't need a theory to confirm paranormality. We have only to confirm whether it meets a criteria for being paranormal based on our knowledge of paranormal phenomena. For example, are the voices only registered on audio recorders? That suggests paranormality. Does the phenomena recur in place associated with tragic sudden death? That suggests paranormality. And so on and so forth.

    Or it may require wholly new methods of epistemic validation, a process certainly not limited to scientific explanation.

    Meanwhile the phenomena continues as it always has and is currently being studied and observed based on scientific principles by paranormal investigators. It's not like we need a workable theory to study the phenomenon itself.

    We can certainly posit conscious agencies behind the transmission of voices and the appearance of humanoid forms. That's what the research has shown. It isn't just random physical effects of inanimate matter.

    How do you know D, E, and F weren't discounted? Are you saying there is an infinite amount of mundane possibilities that can never be fully discounted? That's ridiculous. And knowing what we know about paranormal phenomena we can definitely infer IT is a cause for the phenomena. IOW, conscious disembodied agencies can be inferred as causal agents.

    We've been thru this already. The paranormal shows certain typical traits that qualify it as a KIND of phenomena. This we have learned over years of experiences with it. So it is NOT unsupported and has every right to being recognized as a phenomena in itself.

    So then the next anecdotal report of another scientist's findings will be taken as true, and so on and so on. It's still just anecdotal evidence to everyone except to the scientist who did the experiments.

    So no one disputes the chair moves due to some invisible agent, or the voice is uttered due to the same invisible agent, or the ball of light is a manifestation of that same agent? That's not true. I posted a video of a chair moving in a haunted theater and got nothing but strings, doctored CCTV video, and even a puddle of water. There was no attempt to even acknowledge the reality of the chair moving due to an invisible agent. The movement of the chair by an unseen force, interpreted as a "ghost", was totally disputed and rejected.

    This is done with every investigation. The mundane factors are ruled out, leaving only the paranormal. Thus they arrive at the conclusion of ghosts, which is further evidenced by the regularity of the phenomenon in a haunted location connected with death.

    I'm suggesting that attributing the paranormal occurances to a low freq that had to be artificially produced in the prison itself doesn't prove the existence of those same low freqs without the speakers. That's just common sense.
  22. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Cellphones generally don't have a "shutter" speed setting per-say - they have a more generic "exposure" setting. Even most high-end cameras now, being digital, don't use an actual "shutter" anymore, which, in some ways, complicates things.
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    No. I admit the observation / experience occurred but not as interpreted as paranormal.
    It is not so much contradicting as expanding on what is considered to be paranormal.
    You need to be clear on what you are considering to be "paranormal": the observation or the explanation.
    It is the explanations that are considered paranormal, not the observations themselves. Paranormal explanations are not supported by science.
    But just because one considers an explanation to be paranormal does not mean that they think what was observed does not exist. This is a straw man that you continually raise and it is tiresome.
    The scientific method does not imply a test for the cause, but establishing the cause might be one aim of such tests. Others might merely be to establish correlations, with the cause of each being deemed unknown.
    There is also no "knowledge of paranormal phenomena" - because for it to be knowledge it must be true. And that is the question that we are trying to answer.
    While it is a valid method to assume characteristics and then test observations against those characteristics, one still does not show the cause of those characteristics as being "ghosts", for example. This is where rationality has to take over as to what we choose to believe or not believe as being the cause, or to simply say "we don't know" if that is more appropriate.
    But you seem to want people to accept the evidence for the paranormal, and yet you argue that the paranormal is not subject to the normal requirements for establishing that evidence and so should be given some special dispensation?
    Sure. Feel free to come up with something useful and workable in that regard.
    Indeed. It is in the explanation of causes, for example, where you depart from science into the realm of paranormal.
    You can, but there is no scientific evidence for it, just anecdotal, or the willingness to jump on the paranormal bandwagon before eliminating all the more rational explanations... quite often due to some poor appreciation of what it means for something to be more rational.
    There aren't an infinite, but there are usually far more than the paranormal investigator is willing to examine or perhaps capable of examining.
    Until you get adequately robust testing, or even robust recording of the phenomena, such that all rational explanations can be negated, then you should not jump on the paranormal as an explanation.
    No, what people have done is reinforced an irrational and unscientific explanation through lazy attempts at science, anecdotal evidence, and through a process that has no rigour and only ever takes seemingly positive results as its sample base.
    Under such a method you end up with "paranormal" almost by default. You hunt for positive results and make the findings fit the paranormal explanation you want.
    Or everyone who subsequently reperforms the experiment, or who rely on the fruits of the experiments, in whatever form that may be.
    But behind the acceptance of scientific reports is a robust method of data collection, as well as peer review, and some authority is quite often placed in that process.
    But quite often the reports are merely theories that are not, and should not be, accepted as "true" but merely accepted as "supported by the evidence". You then get competing theories explaining the same data etc.
    No, what would not be disputed is that the chair moves, or that there were sounds, or that there is a light (or what appears to be a light) etc. By stating that it is "due to some invisible agent" is already making assumptions that are unwarranted.
    Presumably because the other explanations were deemed to be more rational, requiring nothing but mundane causes rather than something for which no scientific evidence has ever been forthcoming. Could you prove that their explanations were all impossible?
    Almost every location on earth is connected with death at some point in its history. But no, it is not done with every investigation. In fact the only investigations it is done would be the ones where they uncover the mundane cause relatively quickly. It would simply be too time consuming and expensive to negate all mundane causes, which is why it does not happen.
    But please show me one example of where they have exhausted all possible mundane causes, where there is no possible alternative other than "ghosts".
    Again, I didn't see the program, nor the detail of what they did or didn't do, so can't comment on that. But if they didn't show the existence or absence of the naturally occurring low frequencies, how does that lend any credence to "ghosts"? Are you claiming their lack of apparent rigour (if that is what they are guilty of) is support for the paranormal? Otherwise I wonder why you raised this example?

Share This Page