Alternative explanations

steddyeddy

How about a thread on here were alternative explanations are provided for certain phenomenon.

To give an example the stories of the yeti tracks in the snow could be explained as known animal tracks melting in the snow.

Haunted houses could be built on areas of naturally high infra sound which is known to produce effects of terror and sometimes hallucinations in humans.

Just to get the ball rolling

MrStuffins

Mediums

They could like money!

steddyeddy

MrStuffins wrote: »

Mediums

They could like money!

well there ya go, it could be as simple as that! I suspect it is.

MrStuffins

The one which is possibly the most well known among skeptics but not among those who like to believe in these things is when a glass on a Ouija Board is moving seemingly on it's own, is it in fact happening due to the Ideomotor Effect

steddyeddy

MrStuffins wrote: »

The one which is possibly the most well known among skeptics but not among those who like to believe in these things is when a glass on a Ouija Board is moving seemingly on it's own, is it in fact happening due to the Ideomotor Effect

Excellent, the effect in itself is interesting enough!

Dave!

Sleep Paralysis can often account for ghost encounters, alien abductions, etc.

Pareidolia often leads people to see ghosts or 'figures' in photographs for example, when really they're just random patterns or shadows that our brain erroneously joins the dots for.

Cold Reading is a technique employed by psychics and mediums to give the impression that they're communicating with the dead. They also sometimes use hot reading, if they're particularly conniving.

The Forer effect gives people the impression that a horoscope/astrological reading can accurately describe their lives or predict their futures.

Confirmation bias fits into almost all paranormal phenomena to some degree. People have a tendency to forget about or omit information that contradicts their beliefs, and emphasise data that supports them.

Statistical clustering can sometimes give the impression that some random occurance or coincidence is impossible or magical.

And lastly, and this will also go in a 'logical fallacies' thread that I'll start when I get a chance, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy that people often fall for, making them attribute an outcome to an event that occured before it, despite having no evidence that one caused the other. For example, a child developing (or displaying) signs of autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine.

GodlessM

Dave! wrote: »

Confirmation bias fits into almost all paranormal phenomena to some degree. People have a tendency to forget about or omit information that contradicts their beliefs, and emphasise data that supports them.

Whereas what you have said is true, to be fair it must also be pointed out that confirmation bias exists on both sides of the camp; many scientists etc. have chosen to ignore certain facts at times when they just can't explain something.

steddyeddy

GodlessM wrote: »

Whereas what you have said is true, to be fair it must also be pointed out that confirmation bias exists on both sides of the camp; many scientists etc. have chosen to ignore certain facts at times when they just can't explain something.

I agree completly many scietists have been dogmatic

s3129

Where some times there is an explanation, I've seen some pretty funky things and I definately believe there is only one reason for it, it being ghosts or something paranormal.

Im going to bed now before I scare myself.

Zombrex

GodlessM wrote: »

Whereas what you have said is true, to be fair it must also be pointed out that confirmation bias exists on both sides of the camp; many scientists etc. have chosen to ignore certain facts at times when they just can't explain something.

The scientific method attempts to compensate for human confirmation bias. Of course that won't stop a scientist falling foul of confirmation bias, but they won't get very far.

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

Sleep Paralysis can often account for ghost encounters, alien abductions, etc.

Problem is with this is , science cannot explain the old hag / alien / dark figure or why so many people have the same dream.

There are theory's but no proof that these are correct .

So really it cannot be classed as an explanation

Dave!

Course it can, those things are all common in human folklore, and so are common figures of fear and terror in various cultures. The fact that they are so prevalent in so-called paranormal experiences could just as easily be an argument in favour of a psychocultural interpretation.

By your rationale the bogey man must exist, since so many kids claim he's hiding in their closet.

Dave!

Dave! wrote: »

Course it can, those things are all common in human folklore, and so are common figures of fear and terror in various cultures.

So its a theory ?

kylith

Deleted User wrote: »

So its a theory ?

And your claim that it's a hag/aliens/goblins is documented fact, is it? Based on more than the observations of people who were asleep, I mean.

There are various things which are culturally embedded in our subconcious and which may surface during sleep paralysis. In past times it was goblins, these days it's more likely to be aliens. Millions of people dream of the same thing; being naked in school, having their teeth fall out, many people I've talked to have dreamt of being in an huge shopping centre (I know this because I used to have recurring dreams about it so started asking everyone I knew). This does not mean that these things actually happened, it means that certain things permeate our culture and come out when we're asleep.

kylith

kylith wrote: »

There are various things which are culturally embedded in our subconcious and which may surface during sleep paralysis.

No , i have not seen any proof of aliens or ghosts or goblins .

Can you prove that the things people are seeing are culturally embedded in our subconscious ?

Or is this a theory ?

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

No , i have not seen any proof of aliens or ghosts or goblins .

Can you prove that the things people are seeing are culturally embedded in our subconscious ?

Or is this a theory ?

How does anyone prove something is "culturally embedded in our subconscious" ? Are you able to make an actual argument, or do you prefer to just ask questions and avoid discussion?

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

How does anyone prove something is "culturally embedded in our subconscious" ? Are you able to make an actual argument, or do you prefer to just ask questions and avoid discussion?

So you cannot prove it there for it does not exist ? ?

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

So you cannot prove it there for it does not exist ? ?

That seems to suggest you prefer to ask questions and avoid making an argument and avoid discussion.

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

That seems to suggest you prefer to ask questions and avoid making an argument and avoid discussion.

Whats wrong with asking questions ?

edwinkane

Deleted User wrote: »

Whats wrong with asking questions ?

Whats wrong with asking questions as a method of discussion? Its a matter of proportion. If your only method of discussion is to ask questions, and make no arguments, then there is nothing "wrong" with it, per se. It doesn't make for a very good discussion if all the participants just keep asking questions, as you seem to.

edwinkane

edwinkane wrote: »

Whats wrong with asking questions as a method of discussion? Its a matter of proportion. If your only method of discussion is to ask questions, and make no arguments, then there is nothing "wrong" with it, per se. It doesn't make for a very good discussion if all the participants just keep asking questions, as you seem to.

So anyway back to what you were saying .

You have a theory , and this theory is a suitable explanation to explain something else.

pH

MrStuffins wrote: »

The one which is possibly the most well known among skeptics but not among those who like to believe in these things is when a glass on a Ouija Board is moving seemingly on it's own, is it in fact happening due to the Ideomotor Effect

I've seen good examples of the ideomotor effect, like dowsing where a tiny unconscious movement causes a large movement, because the device is stressed or balanced precariously.

However there's a good reason why dowsers use such devices (as opposed to something like a large plank) because the ideomotor effect is small and subconscious.

However, pushing a glass (plus the mass of the other peoples hands) many inches across a board is not a small movement at all, this is further complicated by the fact that the answer needs to be "figured out" and spelt.

I fail to see why the ideomotor effect needs to be called on here, why not the much more mundane "Someone is pushing the glass around".

I do genuinely believe that the ideomotor effect can fool a dowser, but if the idoemotor effect was causing pointers on ouija boards to move it would work with one person (even better - less mass) However ouija boards are mainly a phenomenon involving groups and there are all kinds of reasons why one member of any group would start consciously moving the pointer around.

edwinkane

pH wrote: »

I've seen good examples of the ideomotor effect, like dowsing where a tiny unconscious movement causes a large movement, because the device is stressed or balanced precariously.

However there's a good reason why dowsers use such devices (as opposed to something like a large plank) because the ideomotor effect is small and subconscious.

However, pushing a glass (plus the mass of the other peoples hands) many inches across a board is not a small movement at all, this is further complicated by the fact that the answer needs to be "figured out" and spelt.

I fail to see why the ideomotor effect needs to be called on here, why not the much more mundane "Someone is pushing the glass around".

I do genuinely believe that the ideomotor effect can fool a dowser, but if the idoemotor effect was causing pointers on ouija boards to move it would work with one person (even better - less mass) However ouija boards are mainly a phenomenon involving groups and there are all kinds of reasons why one member of any group would start consciously moving the pointer around.

Ah yes, "pushing a glass around a board". What nonsense is that, pretending that a spirit is guiding your hand as you pusha glass around a board. its such obvious tosh.

I am convinced that some self proclaimed psychics are deluded, while others are charlatans. Either way, neither the deluded or the charlatans have ever been able to demonstrate paranormal activity in any way accurately and consistently.

steddyeddy

edwinkane wrote: »

Ah yes, "pushing a glass around a board". What nonsense is that, pretending that a spirit is guiding your hand as you pusha glass around a board. its such obvious tosh.

I am convinced that some self proclaimed psychics are deluded, while others are charlatans. Either way, neither the deluded or the charlatans have ever been able to demonstrate paranormal activity in any way accurately and consistently.

The original oujia boards werent used to contact the dead but were marketed as a way to contact loved ones fighting abroad in a war or away at sea.

MrStuffins

steddyeddy wrote: »

The original oujia boards werent used to contact the dead but were marketed as a way to contact loved ones fighting abroad in a war or away at sea.

Not necessarily true.

By the time they were marketed in such a way, they had already existed for over 20 years as a board game.

In fact, the Ouija Board trademark is owned by Parker Brothers

meryem

Dave! wrote: »

Sleep Paralysis can often account for ghost encounters, alien abductions, etc.

Pareidolia often leads people to see ghosts or 'figures' in photographs for example, when really they're just random patterns or shadows that our brain erroneously joins the dots for.

Cold Reading is a technique employed by psychics and mediums to give the impression that they're communicating with the dead. They also sometimes use hot reading, if they're particularly conniving.

The Forer effect gives people the impression that a horoscope/astrological reading can accurately describe their lives or predict their futures.

Confirmation bias fits into almost all paranormal phenomena to some degree. People have a tendency to forget about or omit information that contradicts their beliefs, and emphasise data that supports them.

Statistical clustering can sometimes give the impression that some random occurance or coincidence is impossible or magical.

And lastly, and this will also go in a 'logical fallacies' thread that I'll start when I get a chance, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy that people often fall for, making them attribute an outcome to an event that occured before it, despite having no evidence that one caused the other. For example, a child developing (or displaying) signs of autism shortly after receiving the MMR vaccine.

I agree with the above sayings, but will like to argue that there is very thin line between what is scientific effect and paranormal activity. A true medium or person who see and judge paranormal activities will always identify between the similar looking things whether it is just natural or out of some bad energy effect and will also resolve the issue accordingly without misleading the public. The question always remain before us is that how the gullible can identify good and bad people.

easychair

meryem wrote: »

I agree with the above sayings, but will like to argue that there is very thin line between what is scientific effect and paranormal activity. A true medium or person who see and judge paranormal activities will always identify between the similar looking things whether it is just natural or out of some bad energy effect and will also resolve the issue accordingly without misleading the public. The question always remain before us is that how the gullible can identify good and bad people.

Obviously the gulliable can't, by definition, identity the good and bad people. If they could, they wouldn't be gulliable.

The more important question is how any of those who claim to me a medium, whether good or bad, can actually demonstrate they can accurately get things right.

For my money, they are all bad insofar as not one, in the history of the world, has ever been able to demonstrate beyond anecdote they have any powers in addition to guesswork and trickery.

maccored

i have to laugh how people who have any belief or interest in the paranormal get classed as 'gullible'.

Penn

maccored wrote: »

i have to laugh how people who have any belief or interest in the paranormal get classed as 'gullible'.

I just laugh at people who have any belief or interest in the paranormal.

Oryx

Barrington wrote: »

I just laugh at people who have any belief or interest in the paranormal.

Then respectfully, I would say that the paranormal forum is not the place for you. As per the charter, the skeptics forum is not to be used to mock posters in the main forum.

meryem

easychair wrote: »

Obviously the gulliable can't, by definition, identity the good and bad people. If they could, they wouldn't be gulliable.

The more important question is how any of those who claim to me a medium, whether good or bad, can actually demonstrate they can accurately get things right.

For my money, they are all bad insofar as not one, in the history of the world, has ever been able to demonstrate beyond anecdote they have any powers in addition to guesswork and trickery.

To meet the genuine ones first of all you need to have some belief that paranormal things do exist. Thereafter need to find some real psychic medium from the big mountain by going through natural qualities of a accurate psychic reader. I feel bad, for you could not find the perfect one who set all your doubts aside about the professionals until now to pay some money to or just some deserving respect.

Anyway to make discussion shorter than longer here; for getting into the realm of this debate(whether paranormal world exist or not) the scientific community should try getting more deeper into unsolved paranormal mysteries with open and honest mind to except the outcomes.