Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Magical Realist, Aug 11, 2014.
Repeated results? Good. At least you are admitting the good science behind this field.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Repeating something inconclusive doesn't support any particular premise.
Seen the footage.. it's not real... there's no ghosts on it.
Off-topic discussion splintered off
Now back to your regularly scheduled content
Again I request that you clearly state your hypothesis.
What you pointed out above indicates nicely that you understand how the scientific method applies here: there is no direct evidence of string, therefore it cannot be proven, merely speculated, that string was involved.
I don't need the scientific method to figure out what caused this. Just simple logic. The theater has a reputation for being haunted due to various unexplained incidents. We know from thousands of investigations all over the world and eyewitness accounts of haunted locations that they exhibit such phenomena as objects seeming to move on their own. Lacking evidence for anything else, the chair DOES appear to do this. Therefore, the cause is most likely paranormal in nature. What's your hypothesis?
Simple, yes. Logic, no.
Hearsay. Rumor. Useless.
How many of those investigations were done by credible researchers using the proper methods? How many of those investigations have outcomes supported by the scientific community at large?
What do you mean "lacking" evidence for anything else? Have you even attempted to look for evidence for anything else? If so, please explain how, exactly, you personally investigated this matter. If not, please explaim how you know there is no evidece for anything else.
Until the paranormal can be proven to exist, it can never be said to be the most likely cause of anything. Though, I am offering you a chance to list the scientifc investigations that have proven the existence of the paranormal, so maybe I'll be proven wrong.
The investigations are done by those who are trained in using the equipment, in debunking mundane explanations, and experienced in getting good results. As usual we turn to the people doing the actual research in the field for the answers. Not to some ivory tower scientists doing research only in whatever earns them a grant and public fame.
Well, the scientific method IS simple logic, but regardless of what you call what you did, I was merely confirming that you were correct to reject the "string hypothesis" due to lack of direct evidence.
I'm sure you are aware that the scientific community does not recognize paranormal phenomena as conclusively proven. What you have is actually just a huge number of similarly unproven events. You're losing money on each sale and trying to make it up with volume.
Essentially, you are assuming that a paranormal explanation exists without stating what, exactly that explanation is, but instead making the collection of possible paranormal explanations a default hypothesis. Surely you know that any such suggested explanation is just as unprovable as the "string hypothesis". You are not applying your logic consistently. Indeed, methods for moving chairs across the floor seemingly on their own HAVE been proven, but no paranormal explanation ever has. So the default hypothesis class would be the mundane explanation class.
Your tactic here is burden of proof shifting and while others seem eager to let you get away with it, I am not. There is only one hypothesis on trial here: It is yours, and it is completely unproven. I subscribe to the correct default hypothesis of a mundane explanation, but have no hypothesis for which specific one applies here.
So to sum up: is the theater haunted? Unproven.
You are entitled to such opinions, but you should recognize that such opinions are not logical, given that you have demonstrated the ability to be logical when need be.
Not officially. Yet there are many trained observers in the field using science to measure, detect, and record paranormal activity in cases studied for years now. I tried to post the photographic evidence of such in another thread and was attacked as immature and banned for 31 days for doing so. Mod said I was trolling. So I'm not going to risk being banned here by posting more evidence. You can find sufficient evidence for yourself on the web by searching ghost photos, evps. and paranormal societies for all the evidence you'll need. I'm pretty sure though you won't dare do this as this would shatter your view of reality as totally scientifically explainable. But if you're honestly looking for evidence, you at least know where to go.
Great. So since you have demonstrated that you are capable of being logical, you must agree that this never proven hypothesis of yours cannot be used as a default hypothesis.
Was Jesus a ghost too? Maybe the whole Christian religion is founded on a phenomenon that isn't really that special.
Paranormal activity isn't a "hypothesis." It is a phenomenon which has yet to be integrated theoretically into our physicalist worldview if at all. And this phenomenon can be studied and evidenced by those actually going to haunted locations in the middle of the night and observing it. Examine the evidence for yourself why don't you?
It has yet to be shown there is any phenomenon here at all, apart from observer bias and illusions of the senses.
And that's just it: the "paranormal" hypothesis is so nonspecific, there are countless unproven hypotheses to be generated under that umbrella. Perhaps there are no ghosts and all of these sightings are just god f-ing with us?
36 "While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence
No, it is an hypothesis. The "phenomenon" here is that the chair moved. Again, you properly applied this logic to the "string hypothesis", but refuse to apply it to the "paranormal hypothesis"
What equipment? Ghost-o-meters? Seriously, what special equipment is being used, and what kind of training is required?
Also, if the paranormal were real, wouldn't those greedy scientists be jumping all over it? If they're in it for the money and the chicks, can you think of a bigger payday than proving ghosts exist?
And it has been noted that you have ignored the bulk of my post, and failed to answer any of the quesions posed to you. I will ask you one more to:
How many of these investigations were done by credible researchers using the proper methods? How many of these investigations yielded results accepted by the scientific community at large? If not, why not? What do you mean "lacking" evidence for anything else? Have you even attempted to look for evidence for anything else? If so, please explain how, exactly, you personally investigated this matter. If not, please explaim how you know there is no evidece for anything else.
I'll be waiting for your answers to these questions.
Go ahead and wait then cuz I have no intention of you flaming me again and getting me banned by some hysterical moderator for simply defending my position. Consider yourself ignored.
Separate names with a comma.