People who see the paranormal; mentally ill, hoaxters, or the 'placebo' effect?

maccored · 16-08-2017 12:12pm

personally i dont give a fig what people 'believe' - each to their own. experience is key

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 12:12pm

pone2012 wrote: »

Open mind is not lending credence to anything.. But equally it isn't laboratory experiment or it didn't happen...there's sufficient evidence present in the video provided considering scientists are testing to try and falsify his claims... Which they couldn't

The evidence is present in the documented video... You don't believe it..go and seek out the man himself to try and disprove it.. Many people have searched for him, and all return saying the same thing.. He and what he does is as real as the skin on your body...that's scientists, students and patients

And FYI, Parnia is a Medical doctor... In no position to be labelled an authority on the topic...Try Bruce Greysons work.. If you're going to discuss NDES /OBES that is

you have this backwards. his claims are bogus until he can prove otherwise in an environment he does not control.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 12:25pm

pone2012 wrote: »

Open mind is not lending credence to anything.. But equally it isn't laboratory experiment or it didn't happen...

Which is why I did not describe it so. The description I offered was a good one, so I am not sure why you are instead discounting a description I did not offer.

Again: Open Mindedness is nothing more than the willingness to give something credence, if the substantiation suggests you should. Regardless of whether you like the claim, or it's implications, or not. It is the willingness to change your mind, if the evidence suggests you should. Nothing more.

Calling people close minded, as many do, simply because they do not believe some random claim you make......... is a misuse of the term.

pone2012 wrote: »

there's sufficient evidence present in the video

I have said nothing about a video, you are mistaking me for someone else you are having a conversation with. I was talking about other statements you have made.

pone2012 wrote: »

And FYI, Parnia is a Medical doctor... In no position to be labelled an authority on the topic...

AGAIN with your "authority" issue. You never discuss evidence, just credentials. This is not a good thing. Though it is comical that you deride him for being a "Medical Doctor" before citing another person who is a Professor of Psychiatry. Because yea that makes you an authority on the subject. Not. Especially given his "work" on the subject mostly centers around a book filled with little more than personal anecdotes about NDE. A book criticized in the The American Journal of Psychology for making many claims, but evidencing none of them.

Once again: Parnia constructed a sound and useful methodology for investigating OBE and the results of his study was that he found NOTHING. At all. Nothing came of the study that suggested any paranormal aspect of OBE was real. There was absolutely no basis from the study to think people feeling like they were floating outside their body actually were.

Discussing his credentials, or lack of them, says nothing despite your obsession with that approach. Discuss the EVIDENCE, which was..... zero.

dubjay · 16-08-2017 12:26pm

just because science cannot prove it does not mean it doesn't exist. science is knowledge without love biggest disappointment i heard was from professor cox formally of pop group d ream, "just because i cannot prove a after life it must mean it doesn't exist" so he must know everything so.. . i would not be so quick to judge or mock such things unless of course you have knowledge other wise please enlighten us or can prove them wrong.

NIMAN · 16-08-2017 12:27pm

No-one will ever be able to prove or disprove the afterlife, so its all down to personal belief.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 12:30pm

dubjay wrote: »

just because science cannot prove it does not mean it doesn't exist.

Further however, just because science fails to find ANY evidence for a claim absolutely does not mean the claim is true either. While your sentence is pedantically entirely correct..... it actually says nothing useful.

dubjay wrote: »

"just because i cannot prove a after life it must mean it doesn't exist"

Where are you citing that from exactly?

dubjay wrote: »

i would not be so quick to judge or mock such things unless of course you have knowledge other wise please enlighten us or can prove them wrong.

There is only one judgement I can offer, or need offer, for an unsubstantiated claim and that is merely to point out THAT it is an unsubstantiated claim. What other judgement is required?

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 1:03pm

NIMAN wrote: »

No-one will ever be able to prove or disprove the afterlife, so its all down to personal belief.

Your personal belief has no bearing on reality. You either know, or don't know to varying degrees of certainty. Believing is irrelevant.

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:04pm

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Your personal belief has no bearing on reality. You either know, or don't know to varying degrees of certainty. Believing is irrelevant.

personal experience matters. tbh though, can't be arsed discussing it. people who have had experiences don't need to convince those who haven't. Personally it's no skin off my nose what anyone else thinks - each to their own

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 1:07pm

maccored wrote: »

personal experience matters. tbh though, can't be arsed discussing it. people who have had experiences don't need to convince those who haven't. Personally it's no skin off my nose what anyone else thinks - each to their own

If they don't want to convince others then why be ratty when questioned?

I don't care much either to be honest, I'm comfortable in my stance.

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:09pm

GerryDerpy wrote: »

If they don't want to convince others then why be ratty when questioned?

I don't care much either to be honest, I'm comfortable in my stance.

probably because those who question think they are better, smarter or more 'critical' in their thinking. Condescending in other words. No-one likes that

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 1:13pm

maccored wrote: »

probably because those who question think they are better, smarter or more 'critical' in their thinking. Condescending in other words. No-one likes that

I can not speak to "better" or "smarter" at all. I have not seen anyone here saying they think that.

But certainly "more critical in their thinking" is something they very often are.

When some people, for example, take a few anecdotes of OBE as proof the mind can leave the brain and float around.......... and another group says "Well hang on that is a very interesting and testable claim and we can create some very reasonable ways to test it"............ then the latter group IS being more critical in their thinking.

And if group A feels, in the face of that useful and prudent move, somehow insulted or condescended then I suggest that is their problem and their problem alone. It is certainly not a failing on the part of Group B.

railer201 · 16-08-2017 1:13pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And equally just because people report (and often distort and exaggerate) unusual personal experiences does not mean the paranormal DOES exist.

That's assuming distortion and exaggeration, which is unnecessary in a lot of cases as the events are dramatic enough.

Nothing close minded about refusing to accept claims based on insufficient or entirely no evidence. Quite the opposite in fact.

The thread title states that people who see the paranormal as being mentally ill, or hoaxers or at best fooling themselves (placebo) - no mention of the possibility of paranormal events being true. That's closed minded to me.

Did anyone ask specifically for that level of evidence though? The problem is not that such people can not present that specific evidence. The problem is that people making such claims can not present ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that suggests the claims to be credible (let alone true).

The level of evidence you require comes close to that. People who have experienced paranormal events are in no doubt about what they have experienced and these stories keep recurring consistently. You have to experience these things yourself to arrive at the possible conclusion that there's something else there outside of what science presents - or indeed can test.

How is that not subjective

Also the problem of subjectivity is not just the witness, it is the narrative people put on what they witnessed after the event.

A witness to any event removes subjectivity, does it not ?

Again, you're assuming exaggeration on the part of the witness. Why so ? - the events can be dramatic enough, in many cases frightening and unwanted experiences too.

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:20pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not speak to "better" or "smarter" at all. I have not seen anyone here saying they think that.

I have, in the thread about the paranormal (in fact it was GerryDerpy who mentioned that)

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 1:21pm

maccored wrote: »

probably because those who question think they are better, smarter or more 'critical' in their thinking. Condescending in other words. No-one likes that

Maybe they take offence. But it is hard to soften a logical argument to not sound condescending to those that can't think that way.

I don't think I am better than the next man on the street.

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 1:22pm

maccored wrote: »

I have, in the thread about the paranormal (in fact it was GerryDerpy who mentioned that)

I think it was a fair statement of fact but I take it back if it offends.

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:23pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can not speak to "better" or "smarter" at all. I have not seen anyone here saying they think that.

But certainly "more critical in their thinking" is something they very often are.

When some people, for example, take a few anecdotes of OBE as proof the mind can leave the brain and float around.......... and another group says "Well hang on that is a very interesting and testable claim and we can create some very reasonable ways to test it"............ then the latter group IS being more critical in their thinking.

And if group A feels, in the face of that useful and prudent move, somehow insulted or condescended then I suggest that is their problem and their problem alone. It is certainly not a failing on the part of Group B.

this isnt really a subject to get bogged with, particularly with someone like youself who sees themselves smarter than someone who claims to have had a paranormal experience. i agree with you that some people (in all camps) dont think critically, to assume anyone who has had a paranormal experience isnt a critical thinker is a bit silly.

Theres many kinds of paranormal experiences. Not all are OBEs, orbs, banshees or creaking floors.

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:23pm

GerryDerpy wrote: »

I think it was a fair statement of fact but I take it back if it offends.

no, doesnt offend. I think it just outlines the thinking behind the more cynical

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 1:27pm

railer201 wrote: »

That's assuming distortion and exaggeration, which is unnecessary in a lot of cases as the events are dramatic enough.

Well the assumption certainly is not required to carry my point, no. Which is why I added that part in brackets more as an aside than a part of the point. The mere reporting of such anecdote does not in any way validate the narratives placed on those anecdotes.

Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the experiences. I genuinely believe people HAD the experiences they claim to have had. I just do not buy into the narratives of what they then go on to claim, assume, or think those experiences mean.

But THAT such anecdotes are distorted and exaggerated sometimes is no assumption. It happens. And not just because of the person reporting the experience. There are influences from things like "Interviewer bias" which leads people to report and describe the experiences in a certain way. And Cultural Bias exists too where people parse and describe the experiences through the language and imagery (usually religious) of their own culture.

railer201 wrote: »

The thread title states that people who see the paranormal as being mentally ill, or hoaxers or at best fooling themselves (placebo) - no mention of the possibility of paranormal events being true. That's closed minded to me.

I think it dangerous to judge people on what they did NOT say rather than what they did. You are taking what was left out, and presuming to extrapolate it into a judgement. The OP also did not mention the possibility we are all in the Matrix and the experiences are glitches for example. There are any number of possibilities the OP did not put in the "title" of the thread. like Twitter, the title of the thread is necessarily brief.

I think your spin is in the wrong direction. I see the OP as listing the possibilities that currently have SOME level of substantiation for them, while leaving out the possibilities that do not. And that is not close minded at all. Just as soon as some of the paranormal narratives people hold come with any level of substantiation, then the OP can feel compelled to list them in his solution set.

railer201 wrote: »

The level of evidence you require comes close to that.

Yet I have not commented on the level of evidence I require. So I am concerned you might be making one up on my behalf and then deriding what you created.

I myself am open to ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that someone can offer me that lends even a modicum of credence to the narrative they hold to explain such anecdotes. The problem is not my level of requirements however........ it is the lack of anyone offering anything of the sort.

Rather, they have some anecdotes, they have a narrative they want to explain it with.......... and that is it. Nothing more is presented. And that is certainly not a failing on my part, or the part of my standards of evidence. It is a failing on a complete lack of anything being offered.

railer201 wrote: »

People who have experienced paranormal events are in no doubt about what they have experienced and these stories keep recurring consistently.

And, as I said above to someone else, I would rush to point out I have no doubt they experienced what they say they did either. Many people mistake me for doubting what I do NOT doubt. If someone says they saw things move that should not move, or saw a light on their operating table, or felt like they were outside their own body....... I genuinely believe their description of events and experiences.

What I DO doubt is the narratives they THEN implement to explain their experience.

But do NOT mistake me as doubting the experience itself. I take those on face value for the most part.

railer201 wrote: »

You have to experience these things yourself

I would merely warn you to not assume I haven't.

railer201 wrote: »

A witness to any event removes subjectivity, does it not ?

Nope. An anecdote is nothing more than a subjective description of something experienced.

railer201 wrote: »

Again, you're assuming exaggeration on the part of the witness.

Again, no I am not, as no such assumption is required to carry the points I have made. But THAT exaggeration and distortion often occurs in this realm is something we know already. And in actual studies on the subject we do our best to eliminate those variables as best we can.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 1:32pm

maccored wrote: »

I have, in the thread about the paranormal (in fact it was GerryDerpy who mentioned that)

I am talking about this thread. I have not noticed anyone claiming to be better or smarter here. Not saying they did not do so, I just have not noticed it.

But when I see you write something like this...............

maccored wrote: »

particularly with someone like youself who sees themselves smarter than someone who claims to have had a paranormal experience

...... and I know for a fact I never suggested ANY such thing..... then it merely comes across as you wholesale making it up. You appear to hear what you want to hear, and when you can not, you simply make up the rest.

maccored wrote: »

i agree with you that some people (in all camps) dont think critically, to assume anyone who has had a paranormal experience isnt a critical thinker is a bit silly.

Then you will have to take that up with someone who makes that assumption. Given I did not, I am not sure why you move to take it up with me.

What I DID say however was that someone who merely takes anecdotes of such experiences as verifying whatever narrative they have is a lot less of a critical thinking than someone who says "Hang on, I know just how we can test and verify this claim!".

maccored wrote: »

Theres many kinds of paranormal experiences. Not all are OBEs, orbs, banshees or creaking floors.

Nor do I recall suggesting they were the only types. But they are good examples to serve the point(s) I am making on the subject. But certainly when you get people on the subject then NDEs and OBEs and things moving around are generally where peoples minds seem to go first.

But Ouija boards were also mentioned..... another realm where we have no evidence for any paranormal narrative at all..... but plenty of evidence for autonomic motor neuron effects.

What else would you like included in the list? Reincarnation? I have not seen many people try and substantiate that one since ngarric ran away from the forum. Anything else?

Cheerful Spring · 16-08-2017 1:48pm

Ann22 wrote: »

(Oops sorry managed to quote from another thread. ..ignore that bit)
Some years ago my husband said every time he looked at the clock it was 22:22....then he started seeing it everywhere and so did I. He has a pile of photos he took when he saw it from serial numbers at work/numerous license plates everywhere/emergency phone numbers displayed in a workplace/a wee cube thing from a broken clotheshanger sizes 22 lying on the street that he happened to be kicking along/a photo sent of my nephew with the number written on his jersey/he paused the tv during a football match and two jerseys were on screen both 22..He was the 2222nd person to use his workplaces atm machine....I could go on and on.

Sounds like you experienced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:48pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

...... and I know for a fact I never suggested ANY such thing.....

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But certainly "more critical in their thinking" is something they very often are.

Like - you arent suggesting anything of the kind above. No, of course you didnt

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:54pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What else would you like included in the list? Reincarnation? I have not seen many people try and substantiate that one since ngarric ran away from the forum. Anything else?

my own personal favourite is multiple people witnessing a tannoy system in a locked supermarket turning itself off and on, along with the sound of numerous people talking. Video'd by myself and confirmed by management that the place was alarmed and locked. There were three people there all hearing the same thing.

Then again, you werent there and I dont for one second expect you to believe any of it, but its just one of the reasons why I will argue against the belief that - regardless of what you call it - things can happen that have no logical explanation. In that particular occasion we were quite exhaustive in our efforts to try and find if anyone was in the premises at the time, and - as I said - were assured that there wasnt. Unless its a conspiracy and the management were lying.

These discussions are a waste of time mind you, so you keep on the way you are.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 1:54pm

maccored wrote: »

Like - you arent suggesting anything of the kind above. No, of course you didnt

he said they were more critical in their thinking, not that they were smarter.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 1:56pm

maccored wrote: »

my own personal favourite is multiple people witnessing a tannoy system in a locked supermarket turning itself off and on, along with the sound of numerous people talking. Video'd by myself and confirmed by management that the place was alarmed and locked. There were three people there all hearing the same thing.

Then again, you werent there and I dont for one second expect you to believe any of it, but its just one of the reasons why I will argue against the belief that - regardless of what you call it - things can happen that have no logical explanation. In that particular occasion we were quite exhaustive in our efforts to try and find if anyone was in the premises at the time, and - as I said - were assured that there wasnt. Unless its a conspiracy and the management were lying.

These discussions are a waste of time mind you, so you keep on the way you are.

so because you couldn't find anybody inside you assume it was paranormal?

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:57pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he said they were more critical in their thinking, not that they were smarter.

one statement is as condescending as the other

branie2 · 16-08-2017 1:58pm

One hoaxter that I know of is Christina Gallagher.

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:58pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so because you couldn't find anybody inside you assume it was paranormal?

hard to find someone inside a locked building with the alarms on. Just because the management tell me there couldn't have been anyone in there at that particular time would be the right assumption.

They were lying obviously says you.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 1:58pm

maccored wrote: »

one statement is as condescending as the other

i'm not sure how an objective statement can be condescending. the condescension only exists in the mind of the reader.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 1:59pm

maccored wrote: »

hard to find someone inside a locked building with the alarms on. Just because the management tell me there couldn't have been anyone in there at that particular time would be the right assumption.

They were lying obviously says you.

Or perhaps they were mistaken?

maccored · 16-08-2017 1:59pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not sure how an objective statement can be condescending. the condescension only exists in the mind of the reader.

or course. were you critically thinking there? I cant you see (according to the your logic), so I wouldnt know

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:00pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Or perhaps they were mistaken?

yes. The management of a large supermarket dont know if their building is locked and alarmed. (slaps forehead) why didnt I think of that. I think you are suffering a bit of confirmation bias there.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 2:03pm

maccored wrote: »

yes. The management of a large supermarket dont know if their building is locked and alarmed. (slaps forehead) why didnt I think of that. I think you are suffering a bit of confirmation bias there.

because people never make mistakes do they?

and thus we end up with "i cant explain what happened hence it must be paranormal".

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:05pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because people never make mistakes do they?

and thus we end up with "i cant explain what happened hence it must be paranormal".

err ... no. what you end up with is a supermarket management team checking cameras and stating no-one was in the building.

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 2:05pm

maccored wrote: »

yes. The management of a large supermarket dont know if their building is locked and alarmed. (slaps forehead) why didnt I think of that. I think you are suffering a bit of confirmation bias there.

Did anybody investigate the tannoy system? Where is the microphone placed?

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:06pm

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Did anybody investigate the tannoy system? Where is the microphone placed?

tannoy doesnt have a mic - its a continuous internet stream that either is on or off. It cant turn off and then turn itself on again (nevermind change in volume). Plus when they check the cameras and find no sign of people, Im not too sure where the voices came from either.

NIMAN · 16-08-2017 2:07pm

branie2 wrote: »

One hoaxter that I know of is Christina Gallagher.

Every single person you see mentioned on the MEDIUMS and PSYCHICS forum is a hoaxster too.

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 2:08pm

maccored wrote: »

tannoy doesnt have a mic - its a continuous internet stream that either is on or off. It cant turn off and then turn itself on again

What makes you say it can't? As an engineer I say it can develop such a fault. But I would have to strip it down to confirm if it had.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 2:09pm

maccored wrote: »

tannoy doesnt have a mic - its a continuous internet stream that either is on or off. It cant turn off and then turn itself on again (nevermind change in volume). Plus when they check the cameras and find no sign of people, Im not too sure where the voices came from either.

so the system can be accessed externally?

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:09pm

GerryDerpy wrote: »

What makes you say it can't? As an engineer I say it can develop such a fault. But I would have to strip it down to confirm if it had.

the fact that its an internet stream with no mic? how can a volume control go change itself and where would the voices come from?

GerryDerpy · 16-08-2017 2:11pm

maccored wrote: »

the fact that its an internet stream with no mic? how can a volume control go change itself and where would the voices come from?

Bad solder, shorts on the circuit board, bad switch.

Well the source of audio is the internet stream so I would look there for the source of voices. Maybe the stream changes out of hours?

These are all the avenues you must prove/disprove before making the claim of paranormal activity.

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:12pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so the system can be accessed externally?

every system on the internet technically can be accessed from the outside world. People have hacked in and figured out how to remotely change the volume is the answer is it? plus also hijacked the stream and talked all over it?

Whatever floats your boat.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 2:12pm

maccored wrote: »

every system on the internet technically can be accessed from the outside world. People have hacked in and figured out how to remotely change the volume is the answer is it? plus also hijacked the stream and talked all over it?

Whatever floats your boat.

but surely you were able to rule this out before deciding that it was a paranormal event?

Cheerful Spring · 16-08-2017 2:13pm

If ghosts, strange creatures, and poltergeists exist they will be these places Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about in the video below. Of course they may not exist all? Science does not rule it out though. Scientists openly talk about dimensions and that they could exist alongside our reality. Some people will pick this up and sense it, but you have to some sensitivity for it!

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:15pm

GerryDerpy wrote: »

Bad solder, shorts on the circuit board, bad switch.

Well the source of audio is the internet stream so I would look there for the source of voices. Maybe the stream changes out of hours?

These are all the avenues you must prove/disprove before making the claim of paranormal activity.

I've discussed with the people who manage and run the place - im not too sure how much more can be done than that. The stream doesn't change out of hours - its strictly an automated musak stream 24/7 only. There was no evidence of a damaged system (or of any outside intrusions digitally)

Best to pretend there was so though, just to keep yourself happy, yeah? Definite confirmation bias.

maccored · 16-08-2017 2:16pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

but surely you were able to rule this out before deciding that it was a paranormal event?

absolutely no evidence then, before or since of any outside internet hacking. Amuse yourself though talking in circles.

ohnonotgmail · 16-08-2017 2:18pm

maccored wrote: »

absolutely no evidence then, before or since of any outside internet hacking

was that investigated before you decided it was ghosts? Or are you just assuming it was?

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 2:27pm

No idea why you reply to the same post multiple times so frequently, but whatever the reason I hope my amalgamating them back into one reply is not a problem for you..............

maccored wrote: »

Like - you arent suggesting anything of the kind above. No, of course you didnt

Glad you realize that. Firstly because I do not mention ME at all in what you just quoted and secondly I did not mention anyone being "smarter" in it either. As i said, I fear there are things you WANT me to be saying so you hear them even when they are not at all there.

Certainly however being more critical in your approach to thinking on a subject does not in any way make you "smarter". Just more prudent.

maccored wrote: »

my own personal favourite is multiple people witnessing a tannoy system in a locked supermarket turning itself off and on

Great. So step 1 here from the perspective of someone like myself is to verify THAT that happened. How would you suggest I go about this as Step 1?

The second step is to ask how you then investigated the phenomenon in order to classify it as a "paranormal" event? So far from your description it is an UNEXPLAINED event and nothing more. How are we making the leap from "unexplained" to "paranormal" here?

I might point out I had speakers on my last PC that would do the same thing. A neighbour I had in cork did Band Practice in a cellar next door. I could barely hear the music myself........ but when everything was hooked up and he and his band were lashing out the tunes........ my old PC speakers would pick up the noise. Was very weird..... the speakers were plugged in but OFF and I would suddenly start hearing music through them, with singing. Was only one day when I heard the actual band play in the local bar that I recognized the voices and songs and put 2 and 2 together and it was all explained. Up until that moment however I had no explanation for it. Just like you.

But electronic equipment picking up the outputs of OTHER electronic equipment is far from unheard of. And since, as you pointed out, the system in question was ALSO hooked up to the internet at the time then your obsession with "the doors were locked" becomes even less impressive.

So there are any number of POSSIBLE explanations. Leaping straight from "I can not explain it" to "therefore paranormal" is merely narrative driven bias and little more.

maccored wrote: »

things can happen that have no logical explanation.

Things can happen that YOU have no explanation for. But that does not warrant a leap to it having NO logical explanation.

I too have a wonderful anecdote of something very similar that I was lucky enough to witness one time. The person in question was looking for their keys. Their first port of call was their hand bag of course because that was where she always kept them. They were simply not there. They started looking EVERYWHERE for them.

In the end time was getting short so she gave up and started preparing for work. She started clearing off the table top and at one point she lifted up her handbag, put the keys that were sitting under it inside it, put a few other things in her bag, put on her coat...... and then with a few minutes remaining until she had to really leave...... on a whim......... she decided to check her hand bag for her keys one more time.

And of course there they were in plain sight given I had JUST observed her take them from under the bag and put them in there. Now *I* had observed what happened but *she* did not. And she were convinced some ghostly or supernatural explanation was at play.

She simply had no explanation how the keys could be gone one minute and there the next. As with most purveyors of supernatural explanation she demanded of me to know what other explanation I could possibly offer for the affair.

So I told her. At which point she shut up quite quickly about it.

But it makes me think of a lot of the supernatural anecdotes I hear. Had I NOT been there and NOT observed the reality of the situation..... had I been hearing this anecdote retrospectively after the event........ what explanations could I have given that would have been taken seriously and not dismissed with a simple "No I am SURE that is not it"? How adamantly would she tell me there is no logical explanation for the event?

Worth thinking about next time you are offered a "This happened to me and you CANT explain it" type anecdote from anyone, or before you yourself offer one.

maccored wrote: »

These discussions are a waste of time mind you, so you keep on the way you are.

I do not think they are, which is why I have them. That you think they are, yet appear content to have them all the same..... does not seem a rational move on your part. But hardly my problem really, now is it?

maccored wrote: »

There was no evidence of a damaged system (or of any outside intrusions digitally)

I am agog to know how people working in a supermarket (not to make any assumptions about the qualifications of a person working in such a role, but it tends in general NOT to be someone with a "CEH" qualification or similar) moved to verify such a scenario? By what method did they move to verify a lack of "digital intrusion"? I am genuinely interested on that one because I work in a company with three IT System Administrators, with actually qualifications, and I am not even convinced THEY would know how to go about such a thing. Let alone some supermarket Joe/Jane who's career involves carrying cash to the bank, and turning on and off an alarm system.

maccored wrote: »

Best to pretend there was so though, just to keep yourself happy, yeah? Definite confirmation bias.

I genuinely do not think someone jumping from "I can not explain it" to "therefore supernatural" is in any position to deride the confirmation bias of.... well.... anyone really.

Gravelly · 16-08-2017 2:30pm

Don't know if anyone has posted it before (couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread) but there is a good scientific explanation for people seeing ghosts:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18828_the-creepy-scientific-explanation-behind-ghost-sightings.html

railer201 · 16-08-2017 2:35pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well the assumption certainly is not required to carry my point, no. Which is why I added that part in brackets more as an aside than a part of the point. The mere reporting of such anecdote does not in any way validate the narratives placed on those anecdotes.

Do not get me wrong, I do not doubt the experiences. I genuinely believe people HAD the experiences they claim to have had. I just do not buy into the narratives of what they then go on to claim, assume, or think those experiences mean.

But THAT such anecdotes are distorted and exaggerated sometimes is no assumption. It happens. And not just because of the person reporting the experience. There are influences from things like "Interviewer bias" which leads people to report and describe the experiences in a certain way. And Cultural Bias exists too where people parse and describe the experiences through the language and imagery (usually religious) of their own culture.

I think it dangerous to judge people on what they did NOT say rather than what they did. You are taking what was left out, and presuming to extrapolate it into a judgement. The OP also did not mention the possibility we are all in the Matrix and the experiences are glitches for example. There are any number of possibilities the OP did not put in the "title" of the thread. like Twitter, the title of the thread is necessarily brief.

I think your spin is in the wrong direction. I see the OP as listing the possibilities that currently have SOME level of substantiation for them, while leaving out the possibilities that do not. And that is not close minded at all. Just as soon as some of the paranormal narratives people hold come with any level of substantiation, then the OP can feel compelled to list them in his solution set.

Yet I have not commented on the level of evidence I require. So I am concerned you might be making one up on my behalf and then deriding what you created.

I myself am open to ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning that someone can offer me that lends even a modicum of credence to the narrative they hold to explain such anecdotes. The problem is not my level of requirements however........ it is the lack of anyone offering anything of the sort.

Rather, they have some anecdotes, they have a narrative they want to explain it with.......... and that is it. Nothing more is presented. And that is certainly not a failing on my part, or the part of my standards of evidence. It is a failing on a complete lack of anything being offered.

And, as I said above to someone else, I would rush to point out I have no doubt they experienced what they say they did either. Many people mistake me for doubting what I do NOT doubt. If someone says they saw things move that should not move, or saw a light on their operating table, or felt like they were outside their own body....... I genuinely believe their description of events and experiences.

What I DO doubt is the narratives they THEN implement to explain their experience.

But do NOT mistake me as doubting the experience itself. I take those on face value for the most part.

I would merely warn you to not assume I haven't.

Nope. An anecdote is nothing more than a subjective description of something experienced.

Again, no I am not, as no such assumption is required to carry the points I have made. But THAT exaggeration and distortion often occurs in this realm is something we know already. And in actual studies on the subject we do our best to eliminate those variables as best we can.

Simple question, how could a person see a ghost of a deceased person and not consider the possibility, amongst others that it could be genuine - even if it can't be proved by conventional scientific methods ?

Why the bias towards all the excuses ? It's reminiscent of Scrooge in Dicken's Christmas Carol, who on seeing his first ghost of Christmas past, immediately jumps to the conclusion it was something he ate. Perhaps indigestion could be added to the thread tile as well.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-08-2017 2:42pm

railer201 wrote: »

Simple question, how could a person see a ghost of a deceased person and not consider the possibility, amongst others that it could be genuine - even if it can't be proved by conventional scientific methods ?

Who says they did not consider the possibility? That is an assumption I see often..... they do not think it is a ghost..... so automatically that means they must never have considered the possibility.

Interesting the mind set that must be required to jump from "They do not agree with my position" to "They must therefore never have considered my position"

Never seems to occur to them that they in fact DID consider the possibility...... at enormous and great length.............. and came to the conclusion that it was an entirely unsubstantiated possibility, not supported by anything at all, and therefore they do not subscribe to the idea.

There is a CHASM of difference between recognizing there is zero substantiation for X and acknowledging the possibility of X. I think it POSSIBLE there is a god, an after life, aliens with anal obsessions abducting our citizens as some REALLY long term prelude to invasion, and that consciousness can lift off the brain at the moment of death and go wandering around in some ephemeral ghostly form.

But acknowledging that all those things are POSSIBLE does not in any way prevent my from also acknowledging the not just slight, but COMPLETE, lack of any substantiation for the truth of them either.

railer201 wrote: »

Why the bias towards all the excuses ?

There is no such bias. There is merely a list of other POSSIBLE explanations for the same events. Of which there are many. The bias therefore is being placed in entirely the wrong camp by you here.

The point being that whenever a discussion about the paranormal comes up there is never any evidence for the claims......... rather there is merely anecdote offered in a form that is immune to any other explanation that could be offered.

Read again the "key" anecdote I offered above and now imagine that I had not been THERE at the time but was merely being told about the event in the pub a few days later. How could I have "explained" the event other than to list possibilities to the girl who, knowing her as well as I do, would already by disposed to reject any rational explanation for the magically appearing keys?

And I can not say it often enough but "I have no explanation for that event" != "Therefore paranormal activity was in play".

And unexplained event is just that.... an unexplained event. Anyone who wants to make it more than that is the one for whom bias is in play....... not the people who doubt their narrative.

People who see the paranormal; mentally ill, hoaxters, or the 'placebo' effect?

Comments