Proof of the supernatural

No it's not.

Nope.
The definition of "unknown" is "not currently known".

No.

Did you not?
"It's NOT my fault that people have been widely using and labeling the word WRONGLY."
Who else uses the word the way you do? Anyone?

And, like I said earlier, the term is actually UAP (because of the reasons mentioned in the relevant post).

No it doesn't. As previously explained.

Nice try but "unknown" and "beyond understanding" have completely different meanings.
Neither of which explicitly means "supernatural".

Take a look at all of my (and everyone else's) previous posts on this subject.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're making a claim. Now back it with evidence. Where are these so-called studies that have been done on haunted locations and not yielded anything? Where are all these supposed scientists risking their careers spending nights in haunted locations and never finding anything? Cite the papers. You're making a claim. Now back it up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/do-scientists-fear-the-paranormal-130115.htm

Hell, even groups dedicated to paranormal education and research agree that a bunch of random circumstantial evidence and assumptions does not make good research:
http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Scientific ghost research.html

Then:
http://listverse.com/2013/09/30/10-scientific-explanations-for-ghostly-phenomena/

A few minutes on Google turns up dozens of other results... but I think the point has been quite plainly made.

You, however, still have not provided a shred of evidence to discount the plethora of normal, mundane explanations for such an occurrence...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow..so you find a critique of Daryl Bem's study proving esp and then a few articles talking about why there's no such things as ghosts. But you haven't provided these supposed studies conducted by scientists at haunted locations have you? Where are they? The claim was made that scientists have studied all this and come up with no evidence. But I see nothing of the sort here. Besides, we all know scientists wouldn't risk their careers being known as researchers of ghosts. It doesn't earn you grant money, and certainly will be laughed out of any peer-reviewed journal.

OTOH, there are 3219 paranormal investigation groups in the U.S. alone who ARE spending time at haunted locations studying paranormal phenomena and coming up with evidence. You have only to visit any one of these numerous websites to see their results. So you see, this IS being scientifically researched. And it is being confirmed in spades:

http://www.paranormalsocieties.com/

 

It is not being confirmed. Any supporting evidince continues to be as elusive as ever.

Here is a list of real colleges that wasted real time looking this kind of crap.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

 

No..what remains true is that 4 rescue workers heard a woman's voice coming from a car that had only a dead mother and her unconscious baby in it. That's what happened. Any claim that that is not what happened is speculation at best.

And your claim that they did NOT hear a voice is a claim also. Why should your claim, based on sheer speculation, trump THEIR claim, based on what they actually experienced? If you are claiming they were lying, you should at least provide some evidence for that. Do they have a history of making fradulant claims? Were they overheard in the lockroom laughing about their antics? If you are claiming they heard something other than a voice, provide evidence of that. Was there another noise coming from the overturned car that could be mistaken for a voice?

 

Actually almost all those university studies turned up evidence for esp and precognition. The Princeton PEAR project was a famous one and reached some really amazing conclusions on the reality of such phenomenon: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

Here's the eyewitness accounts of a haunting involving a research team from UCLA:




And here's a scientific investigation into paranormal rappings. Note the conclusion of the study:

http://www.spr.ac.uk/news/colvin-acoustic-properties-poltergeist-rapping

So where's all these field studies of scientists going to haunted houses and proving them to not be haunted? I don't think they exist, for the simple reason that they don't want to discredit themselves as believers in spooks. Scientists are basically more concerned with protecting their sterling reputations than with finding the truth in this area.

 

Interesting how the only people finding any supposed evidence for paranormal activities are non-science groups... and it is also interesting to note - I clicked through about two dozen various links to societies on that page... most had less than 5 members... none of which had any sort of degree in science fields.

Not exactly compelling evidence for your cause MR...

 

What remains true is that they CLAIM to have heard a woman's voice.
I do not dispute that truth... They do indeed claim that. As to the explanation for their claim, they have their opinion (it was a woman's voice coming from the car etc. Others have their own opinion.
Their claim is also speculation in the absence of any proof of what they heard, albeit speculation based on direct experience, although they have no proof for the interpretation they have given for their interpretation.

I don't claim that they didn't hear a voice, nor do I claim any interpretation as true in the absence of proof. What I do claim is that there are explanations more rational than those the rescuers came up with.

Because a natural explanation trumps a supernatural with regard what should be considered rational.

I don't claim they were lying.

I don't know if there was another noise. And in the absence of such evidence I will go with what I consider more rational: the non-supernatural explanations.

Personal testimony is not the same as truth. Personal testimony, even shared testimony, is merely an interpretation of events. Our brains can be easily fooled.

 

I am curious... this Dr. Barrie Colvin, PhD... PhD in what? I cannot find any credentials for this man, nor where his degree was conferred from...

 

Personal eyewitness testimony is sufficient to make the morning news and indict criminals. Allegations that that testimony is false don't hold water unless they have some evidence to back them up. Or at least a plausible explanation discounting that testimony. I'll stick with the personal eyewitness testimony thank you.

 

The PEAR studies have been unreplicated, even by the PEAR group themselves. Furthermore their "scientific" studies have been shown to lack certain standards of rigour (no double-blind experimentation, for example) and the results of the studies themselves have shown nothing that warrants concluding in anything supernatural. Yes, individual studies may appear to, but the meta-data shows nothing.

 

No - personal eyewitness testimony is NOT enough to indict criminals on its own. Evidence of this is everywhere, including the case of the Michael Brown shooting:
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7175967/darren-wilson-charges-michael-brown-ferguson

And Eye-Witness testimony is notoriously inaccurate:
http://www.quora.com/How-reliable-is-eyewitness-testimony

http://lst.law.asu.edu/FS09/pdfs/Koehler4_3.pdf

So, no... Eye Witness Testimony is DANGEROUSLY inaccurate, at best.

 

The morning news are out to grab headlines, and I'm guessing you've never heard of innocent people being found guilty in trials, although being indicted on eye-witness testimony alone? Not sure about that one.
I am not saying that their testimony IS false, only that there is insufficient evidence to take them at face value.
As for plausible explanation, anything that is entirely mundane is more plausible (to rational people) than that which employs the supernatural. This has been explained to you before, but you choose to ignore it because you want to believe in the supernatural, and so dismiss any natural explanation out of hand.

 

Continued from above

In fact:

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

It is remarkably EASY to manipulate an "eye witness" into recalling facts that simply are not true.

http://www.wired.com/2011/05/ads-implant-false-memories/

 

I am, of course, intrigued to see how Magical Realist will hand-wave away the evidence showing how flawed an Eye Witness' testimony really is...

 

The mundane is more plausible only if the paranormal doesn't exist. You make that assumption. I do not. Every case must be viewed totally agnostically--as probable that it is mundane as it is paranormal. From there we objectively weigh the evidence itself. If the evidence says "mundane" we say mundane. If the evidence says "paranormal" we say paranormal. We do not make biased assumptions about the possibility of the paranormal when objectively trying to find out if it occurs. That's bad science. That'd be like a creationist examining evidence for evolution while assuming evolution is not possible.

 

There was no "third party" telling the rescue workers what they heard. They all heard the same voice coming from the car. It was sufficiently clear enough to provoke them into andrenaline-pumped action to lift the car up. That's not some after the fact embellishment by a third party.

 

The Pear Studies WERE replications of the Stanford Research Institute's studies in remote viewing. They were also confirmed by other studies:

http://www.greaterreality.com/notime.htm

 

There is zero confirmed reliable evidence of the paranormal. Show me the respectable peer reviewed scientific journal that published it. Until then ANY naturalistic explanation is more plausible than the supernatural, however unlikely it might appear.