How do you explain unusual paranormal activities after playing on the Ouija board?

[sciencefan]

I understand and believe in the ideomotor phenomenon that explains the "paranormal" movements observed when using the Ouija board. According to the ideomotor explanation, movements observed on the Ouija board are merely unconscious movements resulting from suggestions and expectations of the participants. However, how would you explain the so-called "paranormal" activities that shortly follow after playing the board such as the following occurrence which I read on the internet. It recounts unusual activities that occurred shortly after playing on the board.

The internet post recounts that the chandelier shook erratically, then their room suddenly grew extremely cold, and they all smelled rotting flesh. All these unusual activities subsided after a few minutes but would periodically recur from time to time such as every few days. They stated that this has not happened before, until playing on the board for the first time.

I for one am a scientifically oriented, rational, and a practical person. I do not believe that ghosts or spirits exist. How do you rationally explain these activities? Could all the above occurrences be simply a projection of the participants minds? In other words, can the smell of rotting flesh be a sensory experience that the brain intentionally created to satisfy the participants' need to confirm their beliefs in the paranormal? How do you explain the erratic movements of the chandelier and the sudden drop in the ambient temperature?

Lastly, consider this post which I recently read online. It recounts an experience while playing the Ouija board. During play the board managed to spell out the childhood nickname of a person sitting a few feet away from the board in the Greek language (Please note that this person was not playing on the board). The players did not know how to speak or write in Greek and they did not know the person's childhood nickname. How do you explain this? Could this be a post that was simply fabricated to amuse visitors of the website?

Personally I believe that there is a logical and scientifically sound explanation for these and other such occurrences. The paranormal is merely a phenomenon created and touted by unscrupulous individuals for the purpose of making money and controlling unsuspecting, gullible people.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Lastly, consider this post which I recently read online. It recounts an experience while playing the Ouija board. During playtime one of the participants managed to spell out the childhood nickname of a person sitting a few feet away from the board in the Greek language (Please note that this person was not playing on the board). The players did not know how to speak or write in Greek and they did not know the person's childhood nickname.

Sometimes people say that things they have heard or read about happened to themselves.
Or it could be an unlikely coincidence.
On the TV program Countdown, the random letters sometimes start to spell out words.

On the other hand, if an Ouija board began regularly and reliably spelling out inexplicably correct information, then paranormal activity would be proven. The paranormal if it exists is subject to scientific proof.
This has never happened.

 

[Magical Realist]

Skeptics have no explanation for the paranormal because they deny that paranormal phenomena even exist. Instead of actually explaining it they explain it AWAY as either coincidences, delusion, or deliberate lying and hoaxing. If paranormal investigators hear footsteps in empty deserted buildings they are really just hearing the building settle in a scuffing footstep-like manner. And if that doesn't fit they can always say the investigators were just lying and fabricating false evidence. Nothing punctures the safe little bubble of the skeptic's world. Nothing occurs that threatens the absolutivity of its naturalistic processes. Skepticism thus bears all the hallmarks of a metaphysical dogmaticism, one in fact taken more on faith than on anything like genuine evidence.

 

[Read-Only]

Skeptics have no explanation for the paranormal because they deny that paranormal phenomena even exist. Instead of actually explaining it they explain it AWAY as either coincidences, delusion, or deliberate lying and hoaxing. If paranormal investigators hear footsteps in empty deserted buildings they are really just hearing the building settle in a scuffing footstep-like manner. And if that doesn't fit they can always say the investigators were just lying and fabricating false evidence. Nothing punctures the safe little bubble of the skeptic's world. Nothing occurs that threatens the absolutivity of its naturalistic processes. Skepticism thus bears all the hallmarks of a metaphysical dogmaticism, one in fact taken more on faith than on anything like genuine evidence.

Actually, it's the exact opposite - it's the BELIEVER that takes it on faith rather than "anything like genuine evidence."

 

[siledre]

Skeptics have no explanation for the paranormal because they deny that paranormal phenomena even exist. Instead of actually explaining it they explain it AWAY as either coincidences, delusion, or deliberate lying and hoaxing. If paranormal investigators hear footsteps in empty deserted buildings they are really just hearing the building settle in a scuffing footstep-like manner. And if that doesn't fit they can always say the investigators were just lying and fabricating false evidence. Nothing punctures the safe little bubble of the skeptic's world. Nothing occurs that threatens the absolutivity of its naturalistic processes. Skepticism thus bears all the hallmarks of a metaphysical dogmaticism, one in fact taken more on faith than on anything like genuine evidence.

while a lot of the paranormal believers are not dogmatic? I think your being too one sided in your attitude towards skeptics. I think both sides are, at times, too closed to the other sides ideas. then again, I like my proof to walk up to me and punch me in the face without killing me.

 

[Magical Realist]

Actually, it's the exact opposite - it's the BELIEVER that takes it on faith rather than "anything like genuine evidence."

Really? So what is the genuine evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist? Has science found a way to prove its impossibility?

 

[Magical Realist]

while a lot of the paranormal believers are not dogmatic? I think your being too one sided in your attitude towards skeptics. I think both sides are, at times, too closed to the other sides ideas. then again, I like my proof to walk up to me and punch me in the face without killing me.

Paranormal investigators are the ones acquiring real evidence for the paranormal via scientific means. Yet it is always the skeptic that denies this evidence in the sacred name of science. As if science were an ideology or creed instead of a methodology for investigating unexplained phenomena. So who should we listen to? The ones actually doing the investigating in the field? Or the ones pontificating what can and can't be from their own armchairs?

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page8.htm

"PseudoSkeptics are always saying, "There's no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena" no matter how much evidence is shown to them. That's because this statement is a religion to them, not an objective statement. So no matter what evidence you give them, they will always deny it and raise the bar, simply because "there is no evidence" is a fixed belief to them.

So, if you give them stories and experiences, even from credible sources, they will reject it as "anecdotal" and inadmissible as evidence. If you give them scientific studies that show positive results for psi, they will argue that those studies did not have proper controls (since, if they did, they'd only get chance results, so their fixed logic goes). And they will argue that the studies must be replicable. Then when you show them replicated studies (e.g. Ganzfeld), they will raise the bar again and argue it was not replicated enough times (until a debunker disproves it is what they mean), ad infinitum. So no matter how many stories or replicable research studies you cite, it's NEVER enough. There is no clear bar to meet to qualify as "real evidence" to them, because essentially, there is NO EVIDENCE in their mind, thus there is no real criteria to be met. That gives them the license to deny ad infinitum. It's like playing a shady game of three shells with a con artist. You can never win because the conclusion has already been decided from the get go. That's what makes these Pseudoskeptics dishonest and not what they claim at all.

But the reality is that for some common paranormal phenomenon such as ESP, there is plenty of long standing evidence of both types - anecdotal and scientific. Controlled scientific experiments have yielded positive results for ESP for many years. From the 1930's with JB Rhine, to the current day with Dr. Charles Tart, Dr. Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake, and many other scientists, positive and consistent results for psi have been found to exist far above chance under controlled conditions. And series of psi experiments that have been replicated for decades known as The Ganzfeld Experiments, Autoganzfeld Experiments and PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) have yielded statistically significant and consistent results above chance as well.

In addition, the anecdotal and experiential evidence is overwhelming. Studies show that at least half the population of the world has had paranormal experiences, and according to the National Science Foundation, "60% of American either AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE that some people either possess psychic abilities or extrasensory perception". That's A LOT, no doubt. Common sense would tell you that if half the people in the world have experienced something, then it's pretty much certain that there's something to it other than fraud, misperception and fantasy, especially since a good number of these experiencers include credible down-to-earth people as well. Likewise, large percentage of people of all types from all walks of life have experienced ghosts too.

So you see, the evidence for such common paranormal phenomena is huge. As Parapsychologist Author Dean Radin has said, the evidence for psi is so solid and robust that if the same quality of evidence existed for something non-paranormal, it would definitely have been accepted as proven. But because the paranormal is considered taboo in the scientific establishment, there is a sort of censorship and knowledge filtration toward it. There is an automatic negative stigma and bias toward it that assumes that only crackpots believe in such things. So any scientist who openly supports the legitimacy of paranormal phenomena seriously jeopardizes their career and image among their colleagues. Thus, most scientists who believe in some paranormal phenomena will not declare it publicly, but become closet enthusiasts. Mr. Radin discovered this, as many scientists confided in him their secret unofficial interest and belief that some of the paranormal is real."

Scientific evidence of poltergeist rappings found?

http://www.ghosttheory.com/2010/07/01/scientific-evidence-of-poltergeist-knockings-found

 

[siledre]

the problem from my perspective is paranormal investigating is mired by too many doing it badly so the ones that might be credible get lost in the shuffle, but then that's a problem with a lot of fields today, too many that shouldn't be doing it giving less credibility to the entirety of a body of work. I definitely can't say that it doesn't exist, I can only say I haven't seen anything that makes me believe it exists.

 

[origin]

Really? So what is the genuine evidence that paranormal phenomena don't exist?

The evidence is that there have been countless experiments to determine if paranormal crap exists and they always fail.

Has science found a way to prove its impossibility?

Nope. But you cannot prove that superman doesn't exist. You can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist either.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I'm quite happy for people to say they believe in the paranormal.
I would be very happy for the paranormal to be scientifically proven.
But you can't invent your own kind of science, in which subjective feelings are part of the dataset.
That isn't the way science works.

 

[Magical Realist]

The evidence is that there have been countless experiments to determine if paranormal crap exists and they always fail.

Reference some of them then. I'm sure paranormal investigators around the world would love to hear about these experiments. Have any skeptics actually spent time in a haunted location with sensitive equipment for detecting EMF and voices and light anomalies and movement?

Nope. But you cannot prove that superman doesn't exist. You can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist either.

So you don't know the paranormal is impossible. That's what I thought.

 

[Magical Realist]

I'm quite happy for people to say they believe in the paranormal.
I would be very happy for the paranormal to be scientifically proven.
But you can't invent your own kind of science, in which subjective feelings are part of the dataset.
That isn't the way science works.

What would constitute scientific proof of the paranormal for you then? Would measurements and readings taking by audio, emf, and video devices do it for ya?

 

[andy1033]

I'm quite happy for people to say they believe in the paranormal.
I would be very happy for the paranormal to be scientifically proven.
But you can't invent your own kind of science, in which subjective feelings are part of the dataset.
That isn't the way science works.

Science live in fantasy world, look at dawkins and his fantasy about evolution. Look at quantum physics that cannot be proven, look at the big bang.

SO much of science is fantasy, and never exists. Dawkins rubbish about evolution in humans will one day be seen like gore and his rubbish ideas on the weather, useless rubbish.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

What would constitute scientific proof of the paranormal for you then? Would measurements and readings taking by audio, emf, and video devices do it for ya?

The audio will be something like "gwwwrggggwagggwaaagggggwwwggaaarggwwffgggwwgf"
and then some beardy bloke will say, that sounds like "I'm Napoleon, how do you do".
That's not science, it's sceance.

If the proof was non-subjective, independently measured, and statistically significant, I would accept the paranormal as science.

 

[Magical Realist]

The audio will be something like "gwwwrggggwagggwaaagggggwwwggaaarggwwffgggwwgf"
and then some beardy bloke will say, that sounds like "I'm Napoleon, how do you do".
That's not science, it's sceance.

Really? You've never listened to real Class A EVP's then:

http://www.bestevps.com/

If the proof was non-subjective, independently measured, and statistically significant, I would accept the paranormal as science.

Crime investigators daily solve crimes using gut instinct, anecodotal evidence, and statistically non-significant proof. Why can't the same be used to detect paranormal activity? PLUS empirical evidence based on instrument readings, audio, video, and motion detectors.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Interesting.
They certainly sound like voices.


Instinct and hunches may work well for some investigators to help them solve crimes,
but that isn't science either.

 

[paddoboy]

Science live in fantasy world, look at dawkins and his fantasy about evolution. Look at quantum physics that cannot be proven, look at the big bang.

SO much of science is fantasy, and never exists. Dawkins rubbish about evolution in humans will one day be seen like gore and his rubbish ideas on the weather, useless rubbish.

You sure are in the right forum for such nonsense! :crazy:

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Et tu !

 

[paddoboy]

Et tu !

No my Son, I just refute such rubbish carrying's on, while you passively support such nonsense.
And that refutation will continue when and where I see it necessary, despite your inevitable senseless comments in opposition.
And if you don't like it? Guess what?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

No my Son,

So, you are NOT in this Forum!

And your "my Son" remark is RUBBISH!

I just refute such rubbish carrying's on, while you passively support such nonsense.

Your seemingly obvious delusions and egotistical biases inhibit your comprehension and reasoning abilities.

Case in Point : I am not "your son".

And that refutation will continue when and where I see it necessary, despite your inevitable senseless comments in opposition.

Of course you will continue to Post as you always have, that is your Nature - you cannot be wrong.

And if you don't like it? Guess what?

Unlike you, I do not have to "guess" anything.

You are right, of course.