Proving Paranormal Activity
1
Often, there are two ways of looking at reports of paranormal activity:
1) The person (or people) is telling the truth, and something supernatural did occur.
2) Nothing supernatural occurred, and either the person (or people) is lying or confused or was affected by some natural thing, such as electromagnetic fields.
Too often, people choose a side and then examine the evidence. This may lead them to assuming something to be the truth when it is merely conjecture. Both sides do this - the believers and the skeptics.
Granted, my only proof of this is the many shows about paranormal phenomena and the discourses I've witnessed, neither of which are especially scientific. But that's to be expected, is it not? After all, how many scientists are willing to admit that they believe that paranormal activity could exist, let alone spend time and money researching it?
To get to the point, I'm tired of seeing "investigators" spend a single night in a supposedly haunted house and then claim that it either is or is not haunted. If I was studied for only one day, the researchers might come to the conclusion that I never masturbate, which is very incorrect. I might have simply not masturbated on that day.
I am also tired of seeing witness accounts discredited just because there is a slightly more rational, more "normal," explanation. Yes, maybe a guy didn't really see a ghost, maybe he was just experiencing a hallucination due to a lot of electricity and magnetism in the area, but if we're going to give credit to that possibility, and that is all it is, do we not also have to say that it is possible that he did see a ghost? After all, if I was in a room with a very high EMF reading, and I thought I saw a man running down the hall in front of the door, would I automatically assume that it was a hallucination? Or would I also consider the possibility that it was an intruder?
To be fair, I haven't given a lot of thought as to why ghosts would exist. I doubt I would believe anything religious, and I am unsure if we even have immutable souls, but I feel that there is a chance that ghosts exist, or that something extra-ordinary exists in this world, and I would like to see it investigated the right way.
Sorry to go on about nothing but ghosts. I know that there is a lot of phenomena that could stand to be researched and investigated. To keep this from getting any bigger, I'll not discuss them, but feel free to talk about any paranormal subject you like, as long as it's related to research and similar things.
This is mostly a rant, but I do want to hear what other people have to say on the subject, no matter which side you're on (as long as you keep it somewhat serious and don't troll). Do you think paranormal activity deserves investigation? If so, do you have any ideas on what would be the best way to study such phenomena?
1) The person (or people) is telling the truth, and something supernatural did occur.
2) Nothing supernatural occurred, and either the person (or people) is lying or confused or was affected by some natural thing, such as electromagnetic fields.
Too often, people choose a side and then examine the evidence. This may lead them to assuming something to be the truth when it is merely conjecture. Both sides do this - the believers and the skeptics.
Granted, my only proof of this is the many shows about paranormal phenomena and the discourses I've witnessed, neither of which are especially scientific. But that's to be expected, is it not? After all, how many scientists are willing to admit that they believe that paranormal activity could exist, let alone spend time and money researching it?
To get to the point, I'm tired of seeing "investigators" spend a single night in a supposedly haunted house and then claim that it either is or is not haunted. If I was studied for only one day, the researchers might come to the conclusion that I never masturbate, which is very incorrect. I might have simply not masturbated on that day.
I am also tired of seeing witness accounts discredited just because there is a slightly more rational, more "normal," explanation. Yes, maybe a guy didn't really see a ghost, maybe he was just experiencing a hallucination due to a lot of electricity and magnetism in the area, but if we're going to give credit to that possibility, and that is all it is, do we not also have to say that it is possible that he did see a ghost? After all, if I was in a room with a very high EMF reading, and I thought I saw a man running down the hall in front of the door, would I automatically assume that it was a hallucination? Or would I also consider the possibility that it was an intruder?
To be fair, I haven't given a lot of thought as to why ghosts would exist. I doubt I would believe anything religious, and I am unsure if we even have immutable souls, but I feel that there is a chance that ghosts exist, or that something extra-ordinary exists in this world, and I would like to see it investigated the right way.
Sorry to go on about nothing but ghosts. I know that there is a lot of phenomena that could stand to be researched and investigated. To keep this from getting any bigger, I'll not discuss them, but feel free to talk about any paranormal subject you like, as long as it's related to research and similar things.
This is mostly a rant, but I do want to hear what other people have to say on the subject, no matter which side you're on (as long as you keep it somewhat serious and don't troll). Do you think paranormal activity deserves investigation? If so, do you have any ideas on what would be the best way to study such phenomena?
0
Firstly, nice idea for a thread. It's good that you happen to make threads in this section, here and there. After all this time, the Paranormal section doesn't even have two full pages of threads yet. So a new thread is always a plus.
Secondly, at getting to the matter at hand, sometimes proving or even believing in Paranormal activity seems to be near-impossible (but more so proving it. Believing is only hard for some people). Just like religion, Paranormal situations have two or three types of groups. There are believers and non-believers, some who are in between/indecisive (maybe even more groups that that).
I always felt that proving certain things, such as seeing a ghost, UFO, or anything along the lines was impossible. Firstly because I don't believe the stories easily. Ghosts and spirits are probably the only paranormal things that I can find myself believing in, sometimes. As for everything else, I don't really believe in it. And when I see videos that try to prove these things, it makes me doubt them even more (especially when the videos are for entertainment purposes).
It's kind of like what you mentioned. The investigators on those shows who go into a house and experiment and all/check out the house. They have the little night-vision cameras (with the green lights) and walk around with people, hearing weird noises and all. Those shows seem so fake and scripted to me, that it furthers my disbelief in paranormal activity. Maybe, if there weren't as many television shows like the ones I'm trying to describe, I would believe a bit more. But each time I see one, it just makes me doubt it (I realize I said that a few times). It's like they're trying to convince you to believe that it's real, by entertaining you. Maybe if another approach was taken, as to proving that some sort of paranormal activity/being exists, then I wouldn't be so skeptical and instead would believe.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, that's not the case.
As for whether or not I think paranormal activity deserves investigation... my answer is no. However, it wouldn't bother me if it was investigated. People just need to try a better approach to making it more convincing. Most of the documentaries I've seen are a lot like "The Real World". Sure the people may act as though stuff is real and serious, but how much do you let yourself believe, especially if the show is meant to entertain more than it is to inform?
Secondly, at getting to the matter at hand, sometimes proving or even believing in Paranormal activity seems to be near-impossible (but more so proving it. Believing is only hard for some people). Just like religion, Paranormal situations have two or three types of groups. There are believers and non-believers, some who are in between/indecisive (maybe even more groups that that).
I always felt that proving certain things, such as seeing a ghost, UFO, or anything along the lines was impossible. Firstly because I don't believe the stories easily. Ghosts and spirits are probably the only paranormal things that I can find myself believing in, sometimes. As for everything else, I don't really believe in it. And when I see videos that try to prove these things, it makes me doubt them even more (especially when the videos are for entertainment purposes).
It's kind of like what you mentioned. The investigators on those shows who go into a house and experiment and all/check out the house. They have the little night-vision cameras (with the green lights) and walk around with people, hearing weird noises and all. Those shows seem so fake and scripted to me, that it furthers my disbelief in paranormal activity. Maybe, if there weren't as many television shows like the ones I'm trying to describe, I would believe a bit more. But each time I see one, it just makes me doubt it (I realize I said that a few times). It's like they're trying to convince you to believe that it's real, by entertaining you. Maybe if another approach was taken, as to proving that some sort of paranormal activity/being exists, then I wouldn't be so skeptical and instead would believe.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, that's not the case.
As for whether or not I think paranormal activity deserves investigation... my answer is no. However, it wouldn't bother me if it was investigated. People just need to try a better approach to making it more convincing. Most of the documentaries I've seen are a lot like "The Real World". Sure the people may act as though stuff is real and serious, but how much do you let yourself believe, especially if the show is meant to entertain more than it is to inform?
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
After all, how many scientists are willing to admit that they believe that paranormal activity could exist, let alone spend time and money researching it?If they follow the scientific way, then all of them. It just has to be scientifically proven that this paranormal anomaly actually exists.
ShaggyJebus wrote...
and I would like to see it investigated the right way.Have you heard of the James Randi million dollar challenge? It's his way of "investigating" things that are paranormal, that is, people who claim to have paranormal powers. Although he can't test for ghosts, he has made controlled tests for the people who claim to have paranormal abilities, specifically designed for their ability(e.g. dowsers, psychics), and so far they have always failed this test. At least there's someone "investigating" paranormal claims scientifically, eh.
0
James Randi isn't really investigating. His challenge is there more as a way to get some people to shut about about their supposed powers. And as far as I know, Randi doesn't come out and say that nothing paranormal exists; he just hates to see people give their money to so-called magicians and psychics that are using parlor tricks that any person could do. Also, the challenge is no longer open to anyone. As Wikipedia puts it, "only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic are allowed to apply for the challenge."
Anyways, what you said, HE, about the shows that seek out ghosts and such furthering your disbelief, I can relate. Pretty much every show like that pisses me off, because these people are calling themselves investigators and experts, and it gives the whole idea of researching the paranormal a bad name. So many times, I've heard a person called a "paranormal expert," with no explanation of what that is. They don't prattle off the degrees he has or the work he's done. It's as if all you need to be an expert on the paranormal is a couple of books and a rich imagination.
Anyways, what you said, HE, about the shows that seek out ghosts and such furthering your disbelief, I can relate. Pretty much every show like that pisses me off, because these people are calling themselves investigators and experts, and it gives the whole idea of researching the paranormal a bad name. So many times, I've heard a person called a "paranormal expert," with no explanation of what that is. They don't prattle off the degrees he has or the work he's done. It's as if all you need to be an expert on the paranormal is a couple of books and a rich imagination.
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
His challenge is there more as a way to get some people to shut about about their supposed powers.(I'm assuming you said "shut up about")
No, it's a way of letting people prove their claims of paranormal abilities. These controlled tests are fair and if these people really do have powers they should pass with ease.
Also, I put quotes around the word investigating for a reason. In a way, he is investigating. As for the change in his challenge, yea, shit happens, I'm sure wikipedia told you why.