Paranormal

cavedave

Why is paranormal investigation in the rec section? Why not science? The sticky on the section says

"The function of this board is to provide a place for those who have a keen interest in the paranormal to discuss paranormal happenings and their own paranormal experiences."
Science would seem to have the same interests. For instance if you detect that mercury has an orbit outside the expected this would appear to be paranormal


"As I have already stated this forum is for those that have an interest in the paranormal as such disparaging statements against posters for voicing their beliefs are not welcome."
Any scientist will know that ad hominum attacks are fallacious reasoning no attacks on the man should take on a science board


"Regarding sceptical debate on Paranormal issues
1 ALL belief in the paranormal will be respected.
2 No demands for proof of paranormal validity.
4 If you wish to discuss a post on paranormal in a more sceptical or scientific fashion, please feel free to request a move to the ISS Forum. This can be done by posting in the ISS Copy Request Thread, as per the instructions laid out in that thread."
1. and 2. As a test i will now post about my belief in the flying spaggetti monster. This would count as paranormal will my belief be tolerated?
4. Why sceptics if i detect a problem (something outside the normal) with the standard model I am unlikely to go onto the skeptics board but the physics one.

ESP ghosts and spagetti monsters are succeptible to scientific investigation so why not investigate them here?

ecksor

This is not a science post. Moving to Feedback.

Hobbes

cavedave wrote:

Science would seem to have the same interests. For instance if you detect that mercury has an orbit outside the expected this would appear to be paranormal

Paranormal forum isn't for poking holes in things. Its for like minded people to discuss what they believe. A bit like the religon forums tbh.

Btw FSM is more for Spirtuality forum then paranormal.

Faith

Science is based on facts. Paranormal isn't.

stevenmu

cavedave wrote:

Why is paranormal investigation in the rec section? Why not science? The sticky on the section says

"The function of this board is to provide a place for those who have a keen interest in the paranormal to discuss paranormal happenings and their own paranormal experiences."
Science would seem to have the same interests. For instance if you detect that mercury has an orbit outside the expected this would appear to be paranormal

If mercury's orbit was other than expected, that would indicate a flaw in the current scientific theory which would be investigated and corrected using established scientific method. Not every flaw or inadequecy in a scientific theory is paranormal.

As a very basic and simplified description, the paranormal forum is for discussing things which are (currently at least) completely unexplainable by science, and for the the most part completely unacceptable to science. While there is some similarity between the aims of science and the aims of the paranormal, to gain a deeper understanding of the universe, that's about where the similarities end.

I'd imagine there's no reason paranormal topics can't be discussed from a scientific viewpoint on the science forum ?


edit: It has been suggested before that it be moved to another category, but I don't think it really fits under any of them. It's always worked fine under rec, and I don't see how it would better under another.

6th

The subjects that the paranormal covers can be discussed seperately under different forums, as stevenmu said you can look at them froma science point of view in the science forum. Equally you can look at paranormal tv programmes like most haunted in the tv forum.

It was actually me that suggested the move last time but tbh its fine where it is. To make it fit into REC more we just started going on the p*ss more, genuinely.

6th

Hobbes wrote:

Paranormal forum isn't for poking holes in things. Its for like minded people to discuss what they believe.

Quoted for truth!

GuanYin

It always amazes me how put out people are by the fact that paranormal is in whatever category. Does it really make that much difference?

Flork

Faith wrote:

Science is based on facts. Paranormal isn't.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science&x=0&y=0

#

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

:eek:

WhiteWashMan

Flork wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science&x=0&y=0

#

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

:eek:

wouldnt be paranormal then would it.
it would just be... normal!

cavedave

Yes it would be just normal.
Say ESP exists, many scientists for example Alan Turing believed that the evidence showed it does.
No say it is proven to exist. It now is a topic for science.
Any event that can be detected should in some way be succeptible to scientific investigation.

It was an error to move this topic it relates to epistemology and is thus part of the science discussion.

Zombrex

cavedave wrote:

It was an error to move this topic it relates to epistemology and is thus part of the science discussion.

Not really. No one is saying (I hope at least) that paranormal stuff doesn't belong in science.

But on Boards.ie the paranormal forum is not in Science because it is against the forum charter to treat the discussion in a scientific fashion, unless the orginal poster wishes (in which case the discussion is normally moved to the skeptics forum).

The logic behind this is that the mods believe that skepticism and scientific debate on a subject will make new (and regular) posters feel offended, uncomfortable or silly expressing their beliefs or experiences of paranormal events.

For example if someone says

"I wittnessed a ghost in my attic yesterday, how do I remove a trapped soul from my property"

and someone else goes "umm, how do you know it was a ghost?",

"well I heard a strange noise",

"how do you know the strange noise was a ghost?"

"well what else would it be"

"it could be a million different things! There is no logical reason to believe it is a ghost"

The original poster is now (seemingly) feeling silly about talking about ghosts, and maybe reluctant to post again on the forum. Whether or not the thing actually was a ghost or not is irrelivent.

If someone wants to apply science to paranormal they should do it in a forum that is willing to accept that the commonly held paranormal explination (ghosts, ESP, aliens) can be incorrect or flat out wrong. Such a proposition cannot be made in the Paranormal forum because that risks offending those who believe the commonly held paranormal explination is correct. If you state there is no evidence ghosts are real that might offend someone who strongly believes, for example, their grandmother communicates to them as a ghost etc etc

As Hobbes says its like religion. Cool logical rational argument can offend those who have invested interest in believing an paranormal belief, and as such it is kept out of the paranormal forum unless specifically requested.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Not really. No one is saying (I hope at least) that paranormal stuff doesn't belong in science.

Paranormal stuff doesn't belong in science. The two are mutually exclusive.

There is a crossover only when it comes to arguing whether something is normal or paranormal.

So the only way it belongs in science is when one is saying "thats not paranormal".

ESP ghosts and spagetti monsters are succeptible to scientific investigation

Scientific investigation is an attempt to show that something is not paranormal.

stevenmu

cavedave wrote:

Yes it would be just normal.
Say ESP exists, many scientists for example Alan Turing believed that the evidence showed it does.
No say it is proven to exist. It now is a topic for science.
Any event that can be detected should in some way be succeptible to scientific investigation.

It was an error to move this topic it relates to epistemology and is thus part of the science discussion.

The paranormal forum covers a wide range of topics. I would like to think that scientific discussions would be among these, I'd love to see for example discussions on research into ESP, or perhaps on scientifically plausible mechanisms that ESP may work by. Among such discussions, which are concerned with trying to understand the roots of a phenomona, there are other discussions which take place within what is almost a belief-based framework. For example we might discuss the nature of ghosts, are they sentient aware entities, or recordings/imprints of the past. Such a discussion can't really take place in a scientific context, because there is no empirical data available, it really boils down to an exchange of ideas and opinions. There's also a lot of sharing of advice along the lines of 'does anybody know a good medium ?' 'should I use a ouija board ?' etc etc. There's lots of other types of topic too, many of which wouldn't really be suited to a science based forum.

Wicknight wrote:

But on Boards.ie the paranormal forum is not in Science because it is against the forum charter to treat the discussion in a scientific fashion, unless the orginal poster wishes (in which case the discussion is normally moved to the skeptics forum).

The logic behind this is that the mods believe that skepticism and scientific debate on a subject will make new (and regular) posters feel offended, uncomfortable or silly expressing their beliefs or experiences of paranormal events.

As you should already know this is not true. There are many sceptics who post regularly on the board, and get on quite well from what I can see.

People who blindly dismiss everything paranormal are not welcome, all they do is stifle discussion, which I'm sure you'll agree is a bad thing for both 'believers' and genuine sceptics. People who question the mental health of others for believing in the paranormal are also not welcome, again it drives people away and stifles discussion. Lastly, there are many times where scepticism is plainly and simply off topic. If people want to discuss the nature of ghosts for example, there's no point in someone repeatedly asking for proof of the existence of ghosts. That's off topic and again kills off the conversation. The simple fact is that most 'believers' and people who are open to the paranormal want somewhere to discuss their thoughts and ideas without being constantly hounded for empirical evidence. Without such people, the paranormal forum would be completely redundant. Therefore it logically makes perfect sense to make the forum as accomodating as possible to them.

Look at your own, somewhat exaggerated*, example above. The OP asks how to get a ghost out of his house. Seems like a straightforward enough question to me, yet you start questioning him about how he knows it's a ghost and then trying to convince him that it probably isn't. Instead of addressing the OP's question you seem to feel the need to convince him that it probably isn't a ghost. As above, taking the thread in that direction is only going to drive away the OP, why should he have to convince you that it really is a ghost in order to have his question answered ?


* I say exaggerated because there are very few people who will just blindly believe every noise they here is paranormal related, and I don't think I've ever seen it on the paranormal forum (someone that stupid probably couldn't use a PC anyway). Every now and then there are people who do ask about noises they have heard, they might here footsteps in a room they now is empty, or tapping at a door and no one's there, and they nearly always get more sceptical, common sense answers than anything else. Even the 'fluffy' type answers tend to be "well, it *could* be a ghost but it's probably only mice". Believe it or not, people actually can be quite intelligent, logical and sensible and still believe in paranormal phenomona.

bonkey

stevenmu wrote:

Look at your own, somewhat exaggerated*, example above. The OP asks how to get a ghost out of his house. Seems like a straightforward enough question to me, yet you start questioning him about how he knows it's a ghost and then trying to convince him that it probably isn't.

Leabing aside the "trying to convince" for a bit , I don't think asking someone how they know they have a ghost in the first place is unreasonable. Indeed, I would look at the original question as being a loaded one. Any answer to it implicitly suggests an acceptance that there is a ghost.

So either the skeptic has no place discussing such a question at all, or questioning how the "its a ghost" determination had been reached is a reasonable starting point.

If the skeptic has no place on any question, then its not a scientific topic.

As for the trying to convince bit....are you telling me that if after some time discussing the topic with teh person it became clear to you (as a paranormal believer and someone who knows a bit about the field) that it wasn't a paranormal issue, you'd not try and convince the person in question that they didn't really have a ghost?

I mean..if you believed they didn't have a ghost, would it then be ok for you to dissuade them?

As above, taking the thread in that direction is only going to drive away the OP, why should he have to convince you that it really is a ghost in order to have his question answered ?

He should only have to / be willing to do so if the topic were to be treated as a scientific one. You seem to agree that it isn't so there's no problem there.

Note - this doesn't prevent scientific issues being brought to the table when they're appropriate. It just means that the overall topic - the forum's raison d'etre - is not a scientific one.

Believe it or not, people actually can be quite intelligent, logical and sensible and still believe in paranormal phenomona.

Yes, but I also know that this isn't a commutative relationship. I wouldn't assume someone is intelligent, logical and sensible because they believed in paranormal phenomena. So I'd still want to know how they knew it was a ghost.

I might phrase it more in the "give me more details" way to be polite, but I could just as easily do that on the scientific-determination basis too.

Talliesin

Anyone who is involved in what is termed "the paranormal" needs a degree of scepticism. In any case what you've experienced could have a cause that is outside of what we label "paranormal", or a different "paranormal" cause to the cause you have attributed to it.

However, one doesn't always care to examine these experiences in purely scientific terms. Analogously, sometimes you want to know why a particular piece of technology works, sometimes you just want to use the thing, have it fixed, etc.

The nature of the Paranormal forum would seem to me to suit Soc more than any other category. It would probably be worth considering that the next time there's a big realignment such that Cloud does on occassion. In the meantime it's doing grand where it is.

cavedave

My post was mainly about the three rules listed below leading to logical inconsistencies

1 ALL belief in the paranormal will be respected.
2 No demands for proof of paranormal validity.
4 If you wish to discuss a post on paranormal in a more sceptical or scientific fashion, please feel free to request a move to the ISS Forum. This can be done by posting in the ISS Copy Request Thread, as per the instructions laid out in that thread."

1. All belief is not respected a post on my belief in a supranatural spagetti monster was moved. This post was not a troll by the definition

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

more a test to see what set of beliefs are considered reasonable.
2. Seems very odd. Say given the example above that someone said. "There are funny scratching noises coming from my ceiling do you know a good medium?" It would seem cruel not to say "have you tried rentakill?"

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

So the only way it belongs in science is when one is saying "thats not paranormal".
...
Scientific investigation is an attempt to show that something is not paranormal.

I suppose the problem here is that in some contexts paranomal means "something we don't understand", where as in others it means "something we cannot ever understand"

Something like ghosts, or esp, etc would fall under the discussion of the paranormal forum, since in popular culture these are classified as "paranormal". But tecnically we can't say these events, even if they actually are something like ghost, are beyond the scope of science to study.

And to add, really we can never classify something as "paranormal" using the second defintion, we can only classify something as not paranormal, since (just like we can never prove anything for certain) we can never know that it is something we can never understand, only that it is something we don't understand.

Zombrex

stevenmu wrote:

As you should already know this is not true. There are many sceptics who post regularly on the board, and get on quite well from what I can see.

There are, and many times they are instructed by the mods that skeptical alternative explinations for a posters experience are not welcome on the forum, unless the poster has specifically asked for alternative explinations.

stevenmu wrote:

People who blindly dismiss everything paranormal are not welcome, all they do is stifle discussion, which I'm sure you'll agree is a bad thing for both 'believers' and genuine sceptics. People who question the mental health of others for believing in the paranormal are also not welcome, again it drives people away and stifles discussion.

Isn't that exactly what I originally said?

For example you cannot suggest that a person might be experiencing an optical illusion if they believe they have seen a ghost.

As you said this is because it stiffle discussion of paranormal explinations, and/or make the original poster feel offended or silly about their orignal post.

stevenmu wrote:

Lastly, there are many times where scepticism is plainly and simply off topic. If people want to discuss the nature of ghosts for example, there's no point in someone repeatedly asking for proof of the existence of ghosts. That's off topic and again kills off the conversation.

Again that was my point.

This is why the paranormal forum is not science, and does not belong in a science grouping. To answer the OPs point, it does not belong in the science grouping because no requirement for evidence or proper proof that something is happening is required to assert that it is and then take the discussion from that starting point. If a person claims there is a ghost in his attic the discussion goes from that point. That is fine, but it isn't science. And in fact pointing out that there is no evidence or established proof for the original position is deemed counter to the spirit of the forum.

stevenmu wrote:

Therefore it logically makes perfect sense to make the forum as accomodating as possible to them.

Again isn't this exactly what I said?

Stevenmu I'm not quite sure your point, since you seem to be agreeing totally with what I said in my original post.

The paranormal forum is for people who wish to discuss paranormal events without the question of if these events are actually happening as they believe they are. To introduce science into this system would require that you first establish what is actually happening and then work on from that, which isn't what most posters would want. They want to work off their own beliefs of what is happening and discuss that.

If someone thinks there is a ghost in their attic they want to talk about the ghost in their attic, they don't want to be thinking about all the other things the sound or light could be.

stevenmu wrote:

The OP asks how to get a ghost out of his house. Seems like a straightforward enough question to me, yet you start questioning him about how he knows it's a ghost and then trying to convince him that it probably isn't.

Exactly, that is exactly what you would do in a biology, or chemistry, or physics discussion. Or for that matter any other forum apart from maybe the religious forms. You would establish what is actually happening, and then attempt to fix it.

Replace "ghost" with "mouse" the first question anyone would ask is "how do you know it was a mouse?"

This type of exploration is not welcome because it runs the risk of offending the OP, or making him/her look foolish. It wouldn't really matter if the difference was between a mouse and a bird stuck in the attic, but because of the personal belief nature of paranormal beliefs it would effect them if it was the difference between a ghost and a mouse.

It is the same with religion, people have a much more invested belief in religous beliefs than ordinary every day beliefs, and as such you run a much higher risk of offending someone if you contradict their beliefs on these matters.

stevenmu wrote:

Instead of addressing the OP's question you seem to feel the need to convince him that it probably isn't a ghost.

If I was tackling the question from a scientific stand point I would feel the need to establish the parameters of exactly what is going on first before comment is given on methods to tackle what is going on. This runs the risk of making the OP look foolish or offending them if it is established that they actually don't know it was a ghost.

Which is why scientific stand points are not welcome in the paranormal forum, and why the paranormal forum is not in science.

stevenmu wrote:

As above, taking the thread in that direction is only going to drive away the OP

It will because as I said paranormal beliefs tend to be much more personal than "is it a mouse, is it a bird". As such offering a contradictory alternative could easily be deemed offensive to the OPs beliefs.

The parallels with religion are quite strong in this regard, and one only has to pop over to the Creationist thread in Christianity to see how critical scientific analysis of an event can easily offend someone when they have a vested interest in believing a certain thing is happening a certain way.

stevenmu wrote:

, why should he have to convince you that it really is a ghost in order to have his question answered ?

From a scientific stand point any answer will be meaningless unless it is established first what is actually happening. If you think you have a mouse in your attic but you really have a bird, explaining how to get rid of a mouse would be pointless.

But I stress stevenmu this is only from a scientific stand point. I'm not saying that paranormal discussion shouldn't be allowed, I am merely explaining to the OP why the paranormal forum is not in the science group, and why the charter specifically prohibits critical analysis of paranormal explinations.

stevenmu wrote:

* I say exaggerated because there are very few people who will just blindly believe every noise they here is paranormal related

I'm not sure about "every" noise, but the paranormal forum is full of associations from relitively simple phenomona (strange light, weird noise, fuzzy image on film, static on televisions etc) to paranormal events (ghosts, spirits, telepathy etc)

One mans seemingly normal phenomona is another mans paranormal event. What do the ghost watchers actually see when they go to these haunted houses? Do they see ghosts like in Ghostbusters? No, they see shapes in shadows, they hear bumps and thumps in other rooms, they feel drafts and air currents, they capture shapes on film they didn't notice in person. And the conclusion isn't "we saw something and we don't know what it is", the conclusion is "we saw something we think was a ghost". Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't science.

A lot of it is also to do with association with location and place. You hear a strange noise in a well lit house in the middle of the day with a lot of people around you will dismiss it. You hear the same strange noise on a windy night alone in a house others have claimed is haunted, that noise will take on a completely different psycological significance to the person. Both could have been a ghost, neither could have been a ghost, but the person is a lot more likely to accept the second one was a ghost than the first one.

I'm not sure how you can claim otherwise. Has anyone on the paranormal forum who believes in ghosts seen one clear as day right in front of them like an image from Ghostbusters? Or have they seen something that they think is a ghost?

These are exactly the type of scientific critical investigation that is not welcome on the paranormal forum and is why the paranormal forum is not science.

A lot of people on the forum would say rightly so, they don't want to have to establish what they think they say was actually a ghost. They want to discuss it from that starting point, and go from their. And fair play to them, I've nothing against that, anymore than I have anything against a religous person who wants to discuss Christianity from the starting point that Jesus was definiately resurrected from the dead. But you cannot do that AND apply scientific reasoning to the question.

Zombrex

cavedave wrote:

1. All belief is not respected a post on my belief in a supranatural spagetti monster was moved.

The mods probably believed you were attempting to ridicule people who genuinely believe in paranormal monsters or ghosts, with the suggestion that they should then also accept the possible existance of a monster designed to be ridiculous.

Unless you actually do believe in a spagetti monster, in which case I apologies. But then you can probably see how someone can take offense if someone does not believe them.

cavedave wrote:

more a test to see what set of beliefs are considered reasonable.

Unfortunately my experience of the paranormal forum is that the mods can tend to steer discussion towards paranormal phenonmona they are personally interested in or believe in. I was repremanded by a previous mod of the forum for explaining a paranormal event in a certain way, when the mod was more interested in streering the discussion to a different paranormal area. The mod told me my explination (which was still within the realm of paranormal, though she didn't believe in it) was off topic (since it was "nonsense") and told everyone to only discuss the subject in the realms of the topic she wished to discuss (which she did believe in)

I would point out this mod is no longer a mod of the forum though, but you do have to be careful with what is accepted as genuine paranormal, and what even the mods themselves believe is nonsense.

cavedave wrote:

2. Seems very odd. Say given the example above that someone said. "There are funny scratching noises coming from my ceiling do you know a good medium?" It would seem cruel not to say "have you tried rentakill?"

Not if the person would feel insulted/offended if this was pointed out to them.

Think of it in religous terms. If someone says "I believe I will wait till marriage before I have sex, because that is what God wants me to do". Now there are a million and one logical problems with that assertion, everything from inconsitencies in the Bible, to how this contradicts biological nature. But if you point these out to the person you run the serious risk of insulting them, as they have a much more vested interest in their own established beliefs on the matter. You wouldn't get that if you claimed HB ice cream is nicer than Mars ice cream and someone disagreed, or even if someone said they support Israel on the politics forum and some disagreed. Some beliefs are detacted from our own personality, and others aren't. Some we take personally, others we don't. Paranormal beliefs, for a lot of reasons, tend to be ones people take personally.

Contradicting or challanging these beliefs can lead to great offence or embrassment. Which is the reason for the forum charter rules.

cavedave

Fair enough I could see how the spagetti monster thing could be taken as a blatant wind up so I will accept the mods judgement and stop talking about it now.

It is very interesting how something that could be rationally examined rapidly tends towards a belief system like a religion. Ghosts and such are supranatural and so can easily be seen in a religious context but aliens and Nessie and such?

If you accept that arguing about ghosts and people who believe in them is wrong for emotional (almost relgious) reasons this still leaves whole hosts of paranormal topics aliens, unusual species, esp etc open to discussion

Zombrex

cavedave wrote:

If you accept that arguing about ghosts and people who believe in them is wrong for emotional (almost relgious) reasons this still leaves whole hosts of paranormal topics aliens, unusual species, esp etc open to discussion

Sorry, maybe my post wasn't that clear.

I didn't mean people are personally invested in these beliefs because of religous reasons.

I meant these beliefs work in the same way as religous beliefs. This can still apply to aliens, or yeti, or any other belief that is not associated to a religion.

The common thread is the personal investment someone puts into the belief. Paranormal beliefs, just like religious beliefs, automatically come up against natural logical problems. Some people deal with these by being quite skeptical towards these beliefs. Others, for what ever reason, go the other way, and put a lot of their own indentity into the belief. The almost over compensate for the intial logical issues by over-believing in something. And as such they can be even more offended if someone points out problems with the belief, as they can feel foolish for believing in it, or at least feel the other person views them as foolish. It is much harded to validiate to ones self a religious or paranormal belief, as the logic to back up the belief isn't there to begin with. They instantly go on the defense, believing that an attack on the belief is also an attack on themselves personally for believing in it.

Just like religion, paranormal believers flock around like minded people, and tend to be hostle to view points that criticise the belief. Humans validiate things they aren't sure about but want to believe in by association with others who believe the same thing, and likewise are hostle to those who don't believe in it and who attack said belief.

There is nothing really wrong with that, it is human nature. You find it in every aspect of life, from the paranormal forum, to your local football club. But it means applying scientific reasoning to the subject because hard without risking offending those who have a personal interest in such beliefs being true.

GuanYin

Just a few quick points:

bonkey & wicknight: Noone is banned or discouraged from offering a rationale explanation to a perceived paranormal problem on the paranormal forum. There are many threads that do just that (the one with the weird phonecall after the ouija session was quite openly suggested to be a prank by the host, for instance).

The difference is, as stevemu says, unreasonable approaches stifle debate.
There is no harm in coming in with an argument for something not being a paranormal phenomenon and if such thing as the paranormal exists (I'm scully to stevemu's mulder on that one - T4TF is skinner ) showing it is best served by eliminating things that are wrongly perceived as paranormal. Thats why we have Zillah

But the paranormal forum isn't about doing that. It isn't a debate shop for disproving paranormal or defending it. It is for people to openly and freely discuss the paranormal and their experiences, which they may already be ashamed or uncomfortable with, without being subject to ridicule and mockery.

People often cite me the whole "but they don't need to be protected" line. It isn't about protecting them. It is about protecting the community. Paranormal is a pretty busy forum, with a strong community and links to several organisations on the topic (all thanks to members like 6th, zillah, stevemu and monkeyfudge - to name but a few).

Turning the forum in an entirely different direction, for the sake of gleaming some science out if it serves no purpose in my mind, especially seeing as there is a fully functional "Irish Skeptics" forum on boards.ie that serves just that purpose.

I would also refute the "it is like religion" claim. I don't believe it is. If you're going to suggest it is anything organised, I'd put it more in the lines of a club or at worst a support group for people who have experience or believe in a certain phenomenon and want to discuss it with likeminded individuals.


In short, there are plenty of provisions for skeptical discussion on paranormal. Just approached in the appropriate way for the context of the forum.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

bonkey & wicknight: Noone is banned or discouraged from offering a rationale explanation to a perceived paranormal problem on the paranormal forum.

You know that isn't true Psi.

People have even been discouraged from offering an alternative paranormal explanation for a paranormal problem that disagrees with the mods personal beliefs, let alone non-paranormal explanations.

psi wrote:

There is no harm in coming in with an argument for something not being a paranormal phenomenon

Again Psi, that isn't true.

Any suggest that something is not paranormal in nature is met with swift punishment from the moderators as being off topic. The person suggesting this does not have to be even responding to the OP. Simply mentioning it in an isolated post is considered a breach of the charter, and the post is removed and the poster repremanded.

I mean both yourself and Stevemu even state that this is what is supposed to happen on the forum, that statements something is not paranormal are off topic and not the point of the forum. Its in the fecking charter ffs.

How exactly do you believe a skeptical discussion would take place on the forum within the acceptable realm of the mods and the charter?

psi wrote:

and if such thing as the paranormal exists (I'm scully to stevemu's mulder on that one - T4TF is skinner ) showing it is best served by eliminating things that are wrongly perceived as paranormal. Thats why we have Zillah

Zillah is CONSTANTLY being temp banned or having posts removed for doing just that :rolleyes:

psi wrote:

I would also refute the "it is like religion" claim. I don't believe it is. If you're going to suggest it is anything organised, I'd put it more in the lines of a club

The comparision is nothing to do with the organisation, it is to do with the personal nature of the beliefs, and the personal offense taken if said beliefs are criticised or refuted.

The only other forums on Boards.ie that have charter elements to protect a posters stated beliefs from skeptical criticism are the religion forums. It would be ridiculous to state in the physics charter that one should not criticise the stated beliefs of say a flat earth creationist, but such a charter point is found in the religious forums, and in the paranormal forums. Because people don't get offended on the phsyics forum, or the biology forum but they do get offended on the religous forums and they do get offended by this on the paranormal forum.

Two christians can discuss what Jesus meant by this line in the bible, but a skeptic cannot state "well, we don't know jesus existed, so the point is rather mute" because that, despite being true, risks offending the two christians (this isn't actually how the Christian forum works, it has a much more open to skeptical discussion charter than the paranormal forum, which rather ironic for the paranormal forum. Perhaps you can learn something from that, if Christians don't need protection from skeptical debate, why do ghost believers and ufo watchers?)

The same is true with the paranormal forum. Proper skeptical debate is not allowed because one must accept the existance of said paranormal event to be allowed discuss it in the first place. Any hint/suggestion/or statement (even if it is a "I personally don't believe..") then the person's comments are discouraged/removed/banned as being unwanted in the forum. Put simply everyone must be Christian and then they can discuss what Jesus meant.

psi wrote:

In short, there are plenty of provisions for skeptical discussion on paranormal. Just approached in the appropriate way for the context of the forum.

Again Psi we both know that isn't true.

The "appropriate way" is defined as not being skeptical, so how you can then claim that this can allow for proper skeptical discussion is beyond me. You can be skeptical so long as you aren't actually skeptical.

You have to accept the paranormal event is happening, or is at least paranormal, and then work from that point, because to suggest or state otherwise risks offending those who believe in it.

Time and time again experience has demonstrated that despite the front the mods of the forum put up about the acceptance of skeptical debate, the paranormal forum does not allow skeptical debate.

Now this fine and dandy, a lot of the religious forums don't allow this either. But don't claim otherwise, it just looks silly, and confuses posters who believe they are ok posting a skeptical view point only to find themselves at the bad end of the mods.

Gordon

psi wrote:

It is for people to openly and freely discuss the paranormal and their experiences, which they may already be ashamed or uncomfortable with, without being subject to ridicule and mockery.

It's a forum for closet skeletons?

Hobbes

Wicknight wrote:

You know that isn't true Psi.

I agree with Wicknight. Think I was warned twice or risk being banned for pointing out what something wasn't paranormal in nature as an anwser to something (I forget what, think Orbs was one of them).

DeVore

I dont believe many people would rank the paranormal as a "science". Sorry if that bothers anyone but I dont rank it as a science either. Its the study of things NOT covered by science if anything.

With the current attempt to push ID as "science" when in fact it is a barely tarted up example of another groups set of "beliefs" really makes me mad and I've no intention of backdooring the paranormal into science either. I dont have a problem with people who want to discuss it or believe it but dont start trying to teach my nephews and nieces it.

DeV.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

You know that isn't true Psi.

People have even been discouraged from offering an alternative paranormal explanation for a paranormal problem that disagrees with the mods personal beliefs, let alone non-paranormal explanations.

Not at all, I can show you cases where you offered some and it was opened for a discussion that you refused to substanciate:

here

Again Psi, that isn't true.

Any suggest that something is not paranormal in nature is met with swift punishment from the moderators as being off topic. The person suggesting this does not have to be even responding to the OP. Simply mentioning it in an isolated post is considered a breach of the charter, and the post is removed and the poster repremanded.

Then why wasn't everyone on this thread banned?

here or on this one here.

Both cases forum regulars explore non-paranormal explanations.

This happens alot - of course you say it doesn't so those posts must not exist - spooky!!!!

I mean both yourself and Stevemu even state that this is what is supposed to happen on the forum, that statements something is not paranormal are off topic and not the point of the forum. Its in the fecking charter ffs.

That isn't what it says at all.

Zillah is CONSTANTLY being temp banned or having posts removed for doing just that :rolleyes:

No, Zillah is temp banned for trolling, arguing or attacking forum posters - or occasionally not dropping a topic after he's been told to go back on topic. Which hasn't happened in a long time.

wicknight wrote:

chip on shoulder.

As someone who was banned from paranormal for continuing to ignore moderator warnings (and the charter) I find it amusing that you claim to know the forum and the rules so well. Suffice to say, I thought you were quite rationed in your first postor two and actually considered unbanning you. I see now it was all just a build up to your agenda. Oh well

GuanYin

Hobbes wrote:

I agree with Wicknight. Think I was warned twice or risk being banned for pointing out what something wasn't paranormal in nature as an anwser to something (I forget what, think Orbs was one of them).

It ain't what you do it is the way that you do it.

Incidently, was it bug, T4TF, solas or stevemu or I that did it? Forum rules have changed alot since the forum conception.

stevenmu

bonkey wrote:

Leabing aside the "trying to convince" for a bit , I don't think asking someone how they know they have a ghost in the first place is unreasonable. Indeed, I would look at the original question as being a loaded one. Any answer to it implicitly suggests an acceptance that there is a ghost.

The original question is loaded but I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Because so much about the paranormal is unknown, we regularly have to work on assumptions and hypothetical situations. It's not nessecary to believe everything which is discussed, but it helps the discussion along to work on such assumptions. For e.g. when I first joined the board I certainly didn't believe in ghosts, and after having gone along to a few investigations and experiencing some things, I'm still not convinced, some days I'd lean one way, some days the other. But I can offer someone advice on what to do if their house is haunted, or partake in a discussion on the nature of ghosts, and because of discussions like this everybody gets to share ideas and learn more about what ghosts are supposed to be. It's just the nature of the field (and I completely agree it's not scientific at all) that you have to sometimes suspend your disbelief in order to learn more about.

It's hard to define exactly how skepticism fits in with all this. I suppose there's constructive scepticism, which in this case would be asking for more details and offering alternate explanations, and this is fine. And then there's destructive scepticism which would saying things like "do nothing, there's no such thing as ghosts" or "unless you provide proof then you're just making it up", which happens often and is not fine.

And I'm sure we all agree at this stage this is definitely not science.

Wicknight wrote:

Stevenmu I'm not quite sure your point, since you seem to be agreeing totally with what I said in my original post.

Ah, I see now, I got my wires a bit crossed. I disagree with your view on how harshly scepticism is treated, but I do agree with your reasoning as to why the
paranormal is not scientific.

CaveDave wrote:

It is very interesting how something that could be rationally examined rapidly tends towards a belief system like a religion.

Some things can only be discussed in a rational fashion up to a point. If somebody sees a ghost or UFO or any other paranormal phenomonon and doesn't manage to get a photo or recording or some other piece of empirical evidence they are left with a simple choice. They can either dismiss it as some form of imaginary hallucination, or accept that what they experienced was real. If they choose the latter, most people they talk to will rationally dismiss it. This is where rational examination steps out, and the paranormal forum steps in (not that we can't be rational too of course ) and allows people to share and discuss their experiences and find out more about others and their ideas. There's already plenty of places people can turn to for discussing the 'rational' side of things, but there's very few like the paranormal forum where people can discuss the other side of the story.

And I'd see a big difference between us and a religion. Religions try to grow and spread their ideas to others, or even impose them on them. I'm sure the other mods will agree with me that if anyone on the forum ever tried to push their beliefs on someone else they'd be banned pretty sharpish. Most of us are very carefull to point out that what we say is only our own opinion and not fact in anyway, or sometimes we'll offer both a potential paranormal explanation and a potential non-paranormal one.

DeVore wrote:

I dont believe many people would rank the paranormal as a "science". Sorry if that bothers anyone but I dont rank it as a science either. Its the study of things NOT covered by science if anything.

That's more or less how I'd see it. While there are respectable scientists out there investigating the paranormal, and getting some interesting results too, 99% of the time what we're talking about has no basis in science.

And I completely agree about ID too, beliefs are fine, but they should never try to masquerade as science.

Hobbes wrote:

I agree with Wicknight. Think I was warned twice or risk being banned for pointing out what something wasn't paranormal in nature as an anwser to something (I forget what, think Orbs was one of them).

That must have been a long time ago. Any time I've seen orbs discussed, plenty of rational explanations are given (dust, reflections etc).

6th

I'd say i've read about 90% of the posts in the last 18 months on the Paranormal Forum and from where I stand sceptically is not only welcome but important to the success of the forum.

As Zillah pointed out before there is a difference between scepticism and cinicism (spelling). When it comes to what is known as paranormal activity, each case must be dealt with on a case by case basis. Similarily with the forum almost each thread must be dealt with case by case.

Here is one thread which barely got any attention but it shows two of the very regular posters, both "believers", reply with non-paranormal suggestions. I didnt get banned for my reply but then again come in with "it i a leek, get a plumber!".