How to prove spiritual orbs in photos?

I believe what the evidence shows, that small circles of light known as orbs appear in some kinds of cameras.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh. then, not spiritual orbs.
i thought you were referring to spiritual orbs...oh brother. :}

to all:

this is a cool article. read the last paragraph in particular.
i think there's truth in that.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/27/ghosts.go.irpt/index.html

i was looking at some pics online of regular ole dust 'orbs' earlier, and the challenge is, that sometimes, they can appear to have a color. (so do spiritual orbs) they can appear in clusters (so can spiritual orbs)

spiritual orbs though have a certain movement when seen in video. like magical showed us. that type of movement doesn't strike me as dust/environmental orbs.

as i said earlier, VERY hard to prove spiritual orbs in still shots. vids would be one's better bet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why are they spiritual? I still don't get it. Do they extemporize on the meaning of life and death? Do they arrange themselves into words? "Doesn't strike me as dust" doesn't cut it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

IF you were to rule out all natural possiblities and any natural/mechanical interferences--and yet you still see orbs appearing in photos? or you are capturing them in video?

then, why would that be hard (at that point) to believe it could be something...out of the ordinary?

why do you feel so strongly that it can NEVER be spiritual orbs? that might be the better question.

 

You'd certainly be familiar with what you think are paranormal things.
But in reality all you have are observations for which you do not know the cause.
Or perhaps they have already ruled out every possible mundane alternative?
No, didn't think so.
They rely on laziness in that regard, and a willing to jump onto "paranormal" as an explanation.

And these have been recorded in controlled experiments? Nope, didn't think so.
And I am not saying that the observations are unknown, but that the causes are. To jump on "paranormal" is laziness and an unwilling to apply rigour.

That is just atrocious science. You stop at the observation and then refer to a label you have created for that observation and leave it at that? "It looks like that picture of 'paranormal', so it must be that! Yay, we've found the cause!"
No, you've merely labelled something as paranormal because you're too lazy to conduct proper science, possibly be because they don't want to be shown to have been tricked by the mundane,

There is simply no convincing evidence for anything other than observations that appear to have unobvious explanations. Jumping to the paranormal from there is laziness and born from bias.

And the scientific investigations in to such areas of overlap with physical reality are where? Where can I read such a study of repeatable phenomena?

Or we can just say "we don't know the cause of the observation."

Actually it is part of the standard definitions of what the paranormal is. Just google the term and look at any standard definition.
To quote from wiki: "In most definitions of the word paranormal, it is described as anything that is beyond or contrary to what is deemed scientifically possible. The definition implies that the scientific explanation of the world around is the 'normal' part of the word and 'para' makus up the above, beyond, beside, contrary or against part of the meaning."

Perhaps such can not be denied in terms of actually happening, but the cause as paranormal can be denied.
If a picture falls off the wall, one can either jump to the conclusion that this is the physical effect of a paranormal event... or one can examine the event in more detail, and possibly establish that picture hook gave way through natural fatigue.

Hence we roll out the big "we don't know" for explanations of the cause.
So thanks for bringing up those examples that highlight my point rather well.
Or do you ascribe such things to a god?
Are you someone who must have an answer for all mysteries, that you can not cope with "I don't know"?

Since when did quantum mechanics not fall into the realm of the mundane in this regard?
It is a fine field for demonstrating how we are continually improving our understanding of the mundane.
And you'll note also how much of the field remains "unknown".

But you are unable to say that it walks like a duck... You can only say from anecdotal evidence that something strange happened that we don't know the cause, and you have relabelled such "unknown" as "duck".

The paranormal is unfalsifible, so trying to compare it to science in any way is flawed from the outset.
Come up with a falsifiable theory and put it to the test. That is what science does.
No one has ever been able to do that with the paranormal. If an experiment doesn't work then "the spirit was not in the mood" or some such.

Acknowledging the observation is great. It should be encouraged.
But the interpretation as "paranormal" is the issue here.
No one is denying that cameras are showing some odd things. It is the cause that is in question... not the observation/experience itself.

Exactly: the experience, the observation, was accepted. Bt the interpretation as "paranormal" would be premature. The cause of the lights was simply "unknown".

Such as...?

It in no way threatens my entire paradigm. It threatens it in no way whatsoever.
I would love the paranormal to exist, for there to be some connection to the deceased etc, for there to be a whole other layer to reality that somehow shakes up our understanding. It does happen, you're right, and QM did just that and continues to. But there was no paradigm shift, no crashing of philosophies around the ankles of science. It just encompasses that new understanding and moves on.

There is no objective rationality. It is to each his own in that regard. What you may find rational I might not etc. Thus are such disputes born.
Where you see the paranormal I see interesting observations for which we may not yet know the specific cause. But there has never been any convincing evidence. There has never been any scientific study that concludes with the existence of the paranormal. You jump on a label of "paranormal" to put a cause behind what is unknown, whereas many of us are quite comfortable with "I don't know".

 

Magic,

Incidentally Paranormal is a "Pseudoscientific term", in other words it's not Science.

[From Google search]

In other words if you say an aeroplane travels through the air because "the gods will it", then you'd imply they function "Paranormally". You'd just dump all the physics of aerodynamics out of the window. (although I suppose you could start going on about Helicopters and Bumble Bees)

All things posed "Paranormally" can have scientifically achievable methods of creation, from the mundane to the more elaborate "Hoaxes", it doesn't really leave room for your posed unexplained.... which incidentally the term Paranormal does not mean.

Paranormal being a "pseudoscientific phrase" is why there aren't any experts in the field.

 

You cannot rule out ALL natural possibilities. You can however rule out all KNOWN natural possibilities. See what I mean?

 

Even if you ruled out all known naturalistic causes, there still remains the question, why are they spiritual in nature rather than a yet unknown naturalistic phenomenon. (Which, they aren't unknown at all). If there were evidence that they were spiritual as well as physical, then I would take notice.

 

When you see and record on video a 2 X 4 moving with noone around, essentially defying the law of gravity, you can safely say that it is of paranormal origin. In the field of paranormal research this is known as poltergeist phenomena. Now unless you wanna modify the laws of physics to include exceptions where inanimate objects can suddenly leap up and move around on their own, it's probably better to posit a cause than no cause at all. In this sense saying it is being moved by an invisible being is more in line with science since it preserves the F=m x A.

They're not "jumping" to anything because the phenomena itself indicates patterns typical of a typically-behaving cause. That's just basic science. It's how Darwin inferred evolution by seeing patterns in the traits of finches. He didn't even know yet the mechanism by which it could happen--genes. But he could see the pattern. If he had done as you suggested and inferred no cause, saying it was due to some mundane environmental effects we haven't accounted for yet, evolution would never have been discovered.

Controlled how? Ofcourse they're controlled. Investigators aren't idiots. Many are even ex-cops. Most investigations have at least two witnesses to rule out subjective effects. Possible natural causes are then explored to see it could have been caused by them. When these are eliminated, the video is examined for glitches and operator error. Furthermore the phenomena is checked against the anecdotal accounts of the place over the years. For instance if they hear a child's laughter in an empty hall, and that is in fact what the place is known for, it only confirms the phenomena further. If you would just examine the field itself and see what great lengths investigators go thru to debunk the phenomena before concluding paranormal causes, you would know this by now. But as usual those who think they know the most about this field are the least informed about it.

No the cause isn't unknown. We now know that the paranormal behaves in certain typical and predictable ways. Voices can typical be heard and recorded in haunted locations. Footsteps can typically be heard across floors and on stairs where people are absent. We know the paranormal exists. Therefore, it's causal efficacy is inferrable and helps us to explain phenomena that would otherwise just be dismissed as mysterious and unknown. Your need to ad hom paranormal investigators and believers as somehow lazy is a desperate ploy to attack a field you just don't want to acknowledge as legit.Ofcourse these people are lazy, naive, or just outright liars. That sort of hostility towards people you don't even know is not ever scientific. In fact it has an almost fundamentalist feel to it. Demonize strangers to avoid objectively considering the possiblility of their claims. Perhaps you're a scientific fundamentalist?

The phenomena itself, taken as a composite of various effects experienced and recorded during investigations, dictates it's own nature. It is not just a coincidental collusion of mundane effects because the mundane effects are routinely ruled out. That is part of being a good investigator. If you were familiar with the field you'd know this, but instead you remain content to ad hom and name call perfect strangers for character flaws all in the name of defending your worldviews. Once again that is not very scientific at all. Why don't you go on some investigations yourself and see how their conducted? Meet some of these good people you consistently defame and denigrate? Well no because you just know for a fact the paranormal can't exist much less even be invoked as a possible cause. But you're not goin to be caught dead with these people because you already conclude they are all just incompetent idiots or else deceptive pranksters trying to undermine real science.

Paranoid ad homs again based on the assumption that the paranormal can't exist? Why is this such an emotional issue to you, provoking such malice? Does the very prospect that this field should even become respectable threaten your life in any way? Newsflash: it's happening in thousands of paranormal investigations being conducted by people worldwide. It's getting documented and publicized and televised quicker than it has ever been before. "REAL" scientists may ignore it, as they study dark matter and string theory, but the people are learning about it and believing in it in ever greater numbers. What do you think accounts for the persuasiveness of all this? Surely there can't be THAT many wishful thinkers out there. I'd say most people would rather NOT believe in ghosts. I know I'd rather not. It doesn't speak well for an afterlife where souls can wander around for decades stuck in old buildings repeating moments of their lives.

Paranormal investigation teams often follow each other to the same haunted locations, repeating many of the same results. There's this old military fort for example where a woman's scream can be heard just about every night. That same result is repeated again and again. What more do you require?

Exactly..science being predefined only by the most popular theories of the day. Today spirits may be unscientific because we define reality in purely physical terms. Tomorrow that may completely change due to the physical being defined in broader terms to include other dimensions and multiple universes. Don't be surprised if that happens sooner rather than later.

Or an empty chair jumps up of the floor and turns over because the laws of gravity gave way to fatigue for a moment and allowed it to levitate in midair? Not even remotely comparable to what the paranormal is capable of doing.

Which example on my list of paranormal phenomena comes even close to a picture just falling off the wall? I said objects seen moving by themselves. A picture falling is not moving itself. It is falling because the wire broke or the hook came off. That can easily be checked by investigators. Once again you pontificate about a field you know nothing about.

If we had audio recordings of a god's voice and eyewitness accounts of him materializing all the time I might consider it. But we don't. All the evidence points to the existence of spirits, but no god. Kind of disappointing to alot of people I guess. But who says reality has to match our particular belief system?

The collapse of the wavefunction continues to entail more than mundane causes. Just look at the interpretations used to account for it. Many worlds? Consciousness? Retrocausality? Bohm's implicate order? There is nothing mundane about quantum theory. To insist so is to simply expose your ignorance about it.

Once again look at the proposed causalities. Nothing classical or mundane about it.

If the investigations turn up ghost-like phenomena, then guess what? It's probably ghosts that are causing it. You'd have to be either a total moron or a disingenuous skeptic trying to semantically nullify the very possibility of paranormality to fit your own physicalist agenda not to see this. Which are you?

Ofcourse it's falsifiable. Investigators falsify paranormal claims all the time. Air conditioners kicking on spinning the chandeliers. The weight of footsteps on a flexing wooden floor making a door close. Happens all the time. There are no better debunkers of the paranormal than paranormal investigators themselves. This demonstrates their scientific objectivity and integrity in conducting their research.

No they don't say that. Many paranormal investigators turn up no haunting evidence at all and find instead mundane causes like reflections in windows, bad pipes, or bad electrical wiring giving off intense emf fields. So once again you don't even know what you're talking about.

In actuality all it takes is one really good documentation of objects moving by themselves or voices from empty rooms or an apparition to prove the existence of the paranormal. The fact that it has been proven again and again in hundreds of investigations more than validates its existence as a real cause behind this phenomena. In the beginning it might not have been so. But after at least two decades of such evidence we can now confidently acknowledge it as a real possibility.

No it isn't unknown since we now have a solid and documented history of such events occurring. Noone goes into an investigation assuming the paranormal can't exist. That'd be stupid given what they know from all their past investigations. The paranormal has been proven time and time again to have certain typical effects. Taken together, that's how we can tell it is paranormal and not some random unknowable cause we never heard of.

So acknowledging the existence of the paranormal wouldn't change your scientific physicalist view of reality? I find that hard to believe. If I recall you can't even acknowledge the existence of consciousness as real, claiming it is all just a brain generated illusion. How WOULDN'T the existence of non-physical or transmundance entities shake up your world? You'd have to change everything!

So accusing me of being irrational meant exactly what? Maybe I have a rationality different from your's. Maybe neither of us is right. Maybe both of us are right, especially if rationality is entirely subjective.

You can't really say if there is evidence or not till you examine it for yourself. Waiting in a sci forum thread for other people to post such evidence about a field you know little about doesn't speak highly of your integrity. If you really wanted to know you'd know by now. But you don't. You'd rather sit in ignorance and make repeated assertions to defend your own physicalist paradigm. Which is fine. But at least fess up that that is what you're doin. Don't try to pretend you're really openmindedly examining the evidence when you're not and have no intention of doing so.

 

Yes, what you are both saying is that many who claim the orbs that they capture on film to be of a spiritual kind...you say they haven't most likely, ruled out all natural causes/reasons.

That when in doubt, don't dub them paranormal.

That's what you're saying, right?

 

No, you can't. You can say it is "unknown" until such time as rigour has been applied to remove all other possible causes.
But please, let me see the video by all means.

It's better to posit an unknown cause. If the observation is genuine (rather than an illusion or delusion for example) then noone would deny that there is a cause. Again, jumping to "it's paranormal" is lazy.

You misunderstand: I am not saying that they are not behaving typically - but that the labelling of the cause as "paranormal" is a jump of laziness. Apply rigour and investigate the cause scientifically.

Where did I infer "no cause"? This is a rather gross misunderstanding on your part.

Ooh, ex-cops! The pinnacle of control! (I do hope you can spot the sarcasm there).

And magicians have an auditorium full of witnesses yet are shown a trick or two. But hey, two more gullible witnesses are just dandy. More the merrier.

Explored by who? Show me the rigour of these explorations.

Eliminated by who? Examined by who?

No, it merely reinforces their interpretation - with all the bias that might include.

Then show us the evidence, and the work they have done to try to discount mundane causes.

Yet remains elusive to rigourous scientific investigation. Or do you have the evidence?

Wow - and my pipes knock in the same location, and at the same time after I have had a shower! Must be haunted!
Investigators expect to hear the sounds, and when they do they conclude what they were told they were at the beginning. Where is the science?

No we don't. Some people have reached that conclusion but I see no convincing evidence for it.

How does it help? Why is it not better just to admit that we don't know, that it remains mysterious?

There was no ad hom. They are scientifically lazy. Otherwise we would have a plethora of scientific papers, adequately peer reviewed, documenting the falsifiable theories and the results. Where are they?

Stop jumping to conclusions about me. I have been on such investigations. I have seen their dubious methods first hand, and how they so want to see evidence that they interpret anything and everything as being paranormal. It becomes their first explanation of a phenomenon rather than their last.
And I am not demonising anyone, so stop being so melodramatic! The ones I were with were all hugely entertaining people, and no doubt they convince many people to see what they want them to see. They are earnest in what they do. But they are no less lazy with their science. That is not an ad hom. If you don't conduct the science rigourously then what other word would you like me to use other than lazy?

I'm not the one getting emotional. You're the one now accusing me of demonising people. You're the one that is misreading things I say and reading what you want to read: I have never said that the paranormal can not exist (yes, another case of you misreading what I have written).
And how can people believe in greater numbers? The same reason many people believe in God: it makes them feel better. The same way that UFO sightings increased in the 40s and 50s: popular culture. Your appeal to consensus really does nothing for your argument.

Again, hopefully for the last time, noone is necessarily disputing the observations. Just the interpretation.

Science is actually continually redefing.

It may. And all you are doing is showing how much you are using "paranormal" merely for "unknown".
As said last time: Are you someone who must have an answer for all mysteries, that you can not cope with "I don't know"?

Again - post the evidence. Or is anecdotal all you have?

Yet we have a book that details all of that, and is believed by millions aroung the world. Why are you saying that they are wrong and you are not?

Yet you post nothing but anecdotal evidence (cf. Bible) and some rather disappointing youtube clips.

Then perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by mundane - as in "not paranormal".
Or are you perhaps suggesting that the paranormal is merely an "unknown" aspect of quantum mechanics?

And if your initial interpretation as "ghost" is flawed from the outset then all you are doing is affirming your own bias as you observe more that fits with it.
If I interpret knocking pipes as "ghostly activity" then every time I hear knocking pipes I'm just going to think it's more "ghostly activity".
Yes, before you claim that knocking pipes are mundane and that investigators would discount it blah blah blah, this is an analogy.

Thanks for the ad hom by way of false dilemma.
And again - where have I nullified the very possibility of the paranormal? Quote me where I have done that.

Sure, certain claims can be debunked. But the paranormal itself is unfalsifiable and it is unscientific. There is no theory that can falsify the paranormal, only specific claims of specific occurrences.

And yet all you have is anecdotal evidence and youtube videos? Where is the science from these scientifically unlazy investigators?

Your personal incredulity is noted.

And that is meant to show... what exactly? Other than being a red-herring, since when are illusions not themselves still real? Do mirages not exist? Do optical illusions not exist? They are not as perceived, but that does not mean they are any less "real". But if you want to start discussing this, do so on the appropriate thread rather than raising it here where it is wholly irrelevant.

Would my fridge stop working? Would my car no longer work? Would we all start floating to the ceiling? How exactly would you expect things to change? I didn't know about chemistry until I started school - and other than my understanding broadening, not much changed. Maths... woah... that was a doozy... but still nothing really changed. No personality change. No physical change beyond the normal growing up. Nothing. Bit disappointing for you, perhaps.
But, again, your personal incredulity is duly noted for all its worth.

Where have I accused you of being irrational? I have always only ever said that I find your position to be irrational... the implication that it is irrational to me. At no point did I say "you are being irrational" or words to that effect.
Lucky I don't work on a "3 strikes" rule with regard to misreading what I write.

Oh, the evidence is there for the observations, undoubtedly.
As I have repeatedly said, I find it unconvincing.

You're the one making the claim, so you want me to go out and gather the evidence for you, and to convince myself?
You sure you know how this debating thing works? And where the burden of proof lies?

You believe in the existence of the paranormal. That's fine.
But if you want to start claiming that it is known to exist, that evidence X, Y and Z is tantamount to proof, that will take something more than you posting anecdotal evidence and dubious videos.
So if you have more...?

Anyhoo - apologies for the long post.
Next time I'll condense to something much shorter.

 

Ghost Adventures evidence of paranormal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RchSVDwevpk

 

You've got to be kidding me.

I've known one ghost hunter in my life, his name was Harvey Sheetz, and he was once on the David Letterman show with his ghost hunting helmet. He used to rent a space in a warehouse in my hometown, with a bunch of antique dealers. I talked to him several times, and it became clear he was schizophrenic. He thought black helicopters were following him (we were near DC so they were a common sight as they flew to Camp David). He thought a passing jogger was watching him and waiting for a chance to steal his "inventions", which were bizarre devices made from surplus air force parts and LED lights. He worked at the sewage treatment plant, but did the ghost hunting thing on the side.

http://www.baltimoreorless.com/2012/06/seeking-the-supernatural-ghost-hunter-harvey-scheetz/

 

:roflmao:
Seriously? That's it? That's what you're going with?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7zA-edXsg just by way of quick counter.
Just google "Ghost Adventures Fake" or "Ghost Adventures debunked" to show in how high regard this programme is held.

I did have some respect for your position, Magical Realist.
But I can't stop laughing at the moment and feel that this single post of yours has done more damage to it than anything you could actually say.

Are you're going to cite the UK's "Most Haunted" as more evidence?
'Cos that actually looks credible in comparison to this US drivel.
:roflmao:

 

The problem magical is this; that this is ALL "hearsay" or anecdotal "evidence."
Even if all these people claiming to have encountered paranormal activity rule out all natural occurrences, it would still be anecdotal.
Why am I suddenly forgetting the fundamentals of science when thinking about proving the paranormal?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ugh.

I read an article today everyone that stated that the only way factual evidence would be considered by science would be if an independent study was done in a controlled environment.

Independent study I thought, was interesting wording.

I think it will forever be a hard sell, magical.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh believe me, we CAN and DO say its paranormal because we know that the paranormal exists and that when objects move by themselves it IS paranormal. What else could it be?

Not if the cause is typical of a paranormal cause. It's simply disingenous to disallow paranormality as a possible cause when all the evidence points to it as real.

When you've seen the phenomena enough you can safely posit the cause as paranormal. It's a matter of experience versus lack of experience. Like how a doctor can infer the cause of your symptoms often before even checking you out.

So your saying there IS a cause but we just can't know what it is. Is that it?

Attacking ex-cops now? You're getting a little testy now aren't you? Calm down. Nobody's trying to hurt you here.

So you're saying both witnesses are unreliable because there's some devious magical deception goin on during the investigation that will surely dupe both of them? That doesn't even make sense.

You sound like an owl. By WHOM? Uh..the trained paranormal investigators, those lazy-minded delusional hoaxters that can't possibly be relied on to vouch for anything. I think your bias is showing here big time.

The evidence says otherwise. Go look at it yourself, if you aren't too..what was the word..lazy-minded? (but no! that's not an ad hom now is it! lol!)

You sound like a stuck record. Fact is you've already ruled out any anecdotal evidence and any video evidence. So what other evidence is possible? None. You've essentially made it impossible to prove the phenomenon at all. Is it really THAT important to you that the paranormal not exist?

If you can't tell the difference between a knocking pipe and footsteps you're worse off than I thought. Most people can, especially when there's water running in the building.

You won't even accept the evidence, and then IF by chance some DID get accepted by you, you'd just write it off as unknown. I can't imagine a more biased and close-minded approach to a real phenomenon.

It helps to know how the paranormal typically behaves because it better enables you to document and measure its effects. If a murder occurred in a certain room of a haunted location for instance you can focus your investigation there because that's where the paranormal tends to concentrate. If you catch high emf spikes in a room, then it avails you to try to take some pictures or record evps right there as emf typically indicates paranormal activity. Once again the patterns enable predictability and better documentation. I would think that'd be obvious even to a resolved skeptic like you?

Rigour..Laziness..You have a sort of protestant work ethic about science don't you. Something requiring strict guidelines, heroic willpower, hard work, and stoic self-denial to achieve. Is that why only the very few deserve to say what is real or not. A special elite class of uberobservers who are the only ones that can be counted on for doing real investigations?

Wow..then go ahead and tell us about these investigations? Were the people creating elaborate hoaxes to deceive the ever gullible and stupid public with? Were they being "lazy" staying up till 5 AM walking around thru cold deserted buildings trying to record evidence of the paranormal? Were they anything LIKE what you have repeatedly accused them of being here?

Maybe they weren't following controlled guidelines that YOU'D follow because, unlike you, they believed the paranormal exists. It thus wouldn't be lazy-minded for them to look for what they actually expected to find. Even a scientist will do that, particularly when doing field research. How can a true believer in the phenomenon NOT do that?

Your actions speak louder than your words. You have effectively done everything you can to keep the paranormal from even being considered a possibility, and yet you claim you think it possible that it might exist? You don't even want people to SAY the word paranormal. Yet you want us to believe you're all warm and fuzzy about the prospect of the dead living on and totally accept that it might just be true. I'm calling major bullshite on this one.

I can speak from firsthand experience about this since I believe in the paranormal. And no, it doesn't make me feel good that there are ghosts that can appear to you and even assault you in the middle of the night. I've had many nightmares of demonic attacks. And I'm definitely not inclined to looking forward to an afterlife that is like a wild west of selfish, violent, obsessed, and even insane souls trapped for generations inside some limbo state. That's not exactly the rosy heaven of Bible lore now is it? So much for my ulterior motives for believing in ghosts.

An unknown that can predicted and behaves in certain typical ways then. An unknown that consistently behaves just like it was beings from another dimension having mundane effects on the environment. IOW, a paranormal unknown.

First I'm not rational enough, then I'm lazy-minded, and now I'm weak coward that doesn't want to live in the mystery. Why do you have to assert ANYTHING about how I am? You can attack a position without attacking the person defending the position you know.

You know very well you won't accept any evidence. That's how you nip this whole possibility in the bud. Cuz if there's no evidence then there's certainly no paranormal. But wait! There was no paranormal to begin with because the phenomena itself is really just unknown. So you're doubly safe from the possibility now. Nothing whatsoever to puncture your little self-made bubble of mundane normal existence. Feel better now?

A book of 2000 year old goatherder fables is hardly anecdotal evidence. It's called religious literature. Do you construe all mythological writings as anecdotal evidence?

I've never heard that definition of mundane. Usually it means everyday and routine. Could quantum physics be tied to the paranormal? Perhaps so, especially in light of the fact that involves interpretations that transcend classical physical reality.

A weighted and biased analogy at best. Knocking pipes are very easily confirmed as such and have a distinctive sound all their own. Footsteps and bangings in the wall sound totally different. You should experiment with acoustics more. You might find it easier to detect these subtle differences than you thought.

I didn't say you said it. I said you're doing it. Indeed, what you claim is that you accept the possibility of the paranormal. But then you go thru this semantical word game of trying to invalidate the very use of the word paranormal to describe anything. Then you reject all possible evidence of it--anecdotal AND video. Why claim to believe in the possibility of something you are simultaneously making impossible to even be known?

What kind of evidence will satisfy you here? There IS no other evidence other than just spending the night in a haunted house yourself. Why don't you go do that then? Wouldn't that satisfy you?

Ugh...nevermind....I'm not going thru that rigamarole again.

Science would no longer be the infallible source of information you take it to be. Your epistemic focus might shift from second-hand published accounts from fund-seeking scientists to a firsthand experience of reality as it happens. It might take a lot of certainty away from your life--the secure feeling that everything is well-known and well-defined--and fill the universe with more mystery and profundity. It might even make you a more spiritual person. Not necessarily theist. Just spiritual. Could you handle that?

No..go out and gather the evidence for YOU. There's really know other way to explore this topic. Otherwise it DOES precisely take the form of some debate? where two people are heatedly defending two positions and not really even worried much about the truth of the topic anymore. But I doubt you'll ever be convinced because you've already made up your mind that the paranormal can't exist--that it is simply the unknown mundane.

Is that what we're doing? That's news to me.

Just as I said. No anecdotal nor video evidence, effectively cancelling out all possibility of proof.

 

That's it? Resort to mockery and ridicule when you have no counterargument. Suddenly all TV shows are fake. A vast conspiracy to deceive mankind. I'm glad I don't live in that world. How paranoid I'd have to be just to get thru the day!

 

Yet look how much of reality we daily accept on mere anecdotal evidence. The news. Magazines. Websites. People at work. If we had to wait for science to independently test and confirm all information about all events we'd never believe in anything. And yet we do because we have to live our lives in a world where people can be counted on and are not all assumed to be liars. I think it's agenda driven and extremely biased to say that just because someone claims to have a paranormal experience that they must be lying or delusional. We just don't do that in our everyday life. Why should we start now?

 

The interesting thing is that , very few doubters actually put themselves in the situation of experiencing the paranormal

 

As for your "quick counter", notice the video of the coatrack is clipped right in the middle of it happening. In the last complete replay you DO hear a THWACK sound. RE: the bird cage, so it moved since the psychic was up there. You don't think the same force that was pushing it off the table couldn't have been doin it gradually until it reached the ledge and fell off? I'm not seeing any string here either. So much for "counters"..lol!