- #1
pallidin
- 2,209
- 2
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble, getty, crumb, fragment, scrap, bit, shread, tittle, or remotest iota of evidence for paranormal phenomena.Originally posted by pallidin
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?
Might I impose upon you, please, to define the word "bibble"?Originally posted by Yahweh
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble..."
Originally posted by Yahweh
There is not a single smidgen, hair, thread, ounce, bibble, getty, crumb, fragment, scrap, bit, shread, tittle, or remotest iota of evidence for paranormal phenomena.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Considering the shear number of "psychics" and their "predictions," it's little wonder that some of them will get significantly lucky.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is no proof that all hits are luck; thus evidence does exist. This is the difference between evidence and proof.
(I made up a definition for "getty" also... :D )Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Might I impose upon you, please, to define the word "bibble"?
Not exactly, see http://skepdic.com/dixon.html.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time.
Well, if the ghosts never interacted the physical world, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate any empirical evidence for their existence.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?
That is one hurdle which is impossible to get across.Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims?
I want to quickly make a comment...There are examples in the public record, especially with police investigations, in which the police will tell you that some particular person did help in a case allegedly by using ESP. The problem is that most any skeptic cries "random luck" in all such cases; no matter how unlikely this may be. He can't prove this, which means that your argument is out the window, but instead of realizing that we only have evidence, and not proof, many still claim incorrectly that we have no evidence for such things. This fallacy is an example of pseudoscience.
But what about testimonials from experienced homicide detectives who have actually used psychics? Most reported successes appear to be like the one that a New Jersey police captain attributed to Dorothy Allison. Her predictions "were difficult to verify as initially given," he said. "The accuracy usually could not be verified until the investigation had come to a conclusion." Indeed, this after-the-fact matchingóknown as "retrofitting"óis the secret behind most alleged psychic successes. For example, the statement, "I see water and the number seven," would be a safe offering in almost any case. After all the facts are in, it will be unusual if there is not some stream, body of water, or other source that cannot somehow be associated with the case. As to the number seven, that can later be associated with a distance, a highway, the number of people in a search party, part of a license plate number, or any countless other possible interpretations.
Other explanations for psychics' reputed successes include the following:
(1) Some psychics exaggerate their successes, even claiming positive results in cases that were failures or that never existed. (2) Psychics may use ordinary means of obtaining information which they then present as having been psychically obtained. For example, psychics have been accused of impersonating police and even of bribery of police officers in order to gain information. In one instance the psychic, unknown to a detective, had actually been briefed on the case by others.
Shrewd psychics can brief themselves by studying newspaper files or area maps, and some make use of the fortune tellers technique of "cold reading" ( a technique in which the psychic fishes for information while watching the listener's face for reactions that suggest correctness or error.) (3) Another potential explanation for psychic's apparent successes is faulty recollection of what was actually said. The fallibility of memory is well known, and many stories of psychic success get better as they are told and retold. (4) Many psychics deal in vague generalities: for example, one psychic reported perceiving, "the names 'John' or 'Joseph' or something like that." (5) And there are social and psychological factors that may influence people to accept the accuracy of information. Obviously their own belief system will have an effect.
The Bottom Line
Except in the extremely rare case in which a psychic was actually involved in the crime or had apparently received secret information (as from a tip), psychics rarely lead police to concealed bodies or unknown assailants. Of course they may use their own logical skills, or they may benefit from luck or perseverance, but there is no credible scientific evidence that psychic power ever solved a crime. Instead, crimes are invariably solved by police who search crime scenes, interview witnesses, and perform all of the myriad tasks necessary to locate a missing person or to convict a criminal.
...
Actually, the case against psychics is worse than just their inability to provide information that actually solves crimes. A far more serious problem exists with regard to the wasted resources of police departments who expend precious time and human activity in following up on a psychic's meaningless "clues." In one instance, the Nutley, New Jersey, police spent the whole of an afternoon in digging up a drainage ditch that Dorothy Allison mistakenly thought contained a missing boy. In another case, the fire department pumped the water from the flooded basement of an abandoned building in a fruitless search for a boy's remains that eventually were discovered across town. Even worse, psychics have wrongfully accused persons of committing crimes, a memorable example being that of Peter Hurkos, "the man with the radar brain," who mistakenly identified an innocent man as the notorious Boston Strangler. These examples answer the question that is often asked by those who defend the use of psychics, "what harm can it do?" Another argument defenders use is that, on occasion, a psychic's pronouncements prompted further search efforts, resulting in the discovery of the missing person's body, even though the psychic did not actually identify the location.
But surely police should not have to rely on psychics to urge them to do more thorough work.
In brief, knowledgeable police officials resist the temptation to employ psychics. They know that psychic claims lack any scientific verification and that, in fact, psychics do not solve crimes. No longer should police solve crimes and let publicity-seeking occult pretenders take the credit.
Evidence for ESP? No. Here is why:Note that one of the most famed "psychics", Jean Dixon, gained fame by publicly warning Kennedy not to go to Dallas or he would be assasinated. This was general knowledge [in the press] at the time. Was this just luck? Maybe. Is it evidence for ESP? Yes. Is it proof? No.
Originally posted by Doc Al
Not exactly, see http://skepdic.com/dixon.html.
Originally posted by Yahweh
Well, if the ghosts never interacted the physical world, I don't think it would be possible to demonstrate any empirical evidence for their existence.
However, as its been reported that the temperture drops in the presence of a ghost, I would definitely consider an infrared of a something walking around, in combination with a low-light or other camera to verify that there is nothing walking in front of the camera. (Assuming the camera footage is legitimate.)
Or perhaps a documented experience of Skeptics and Scientists asking a spirit to throw something across the room, then a cup flies across the room.
Note: The "orbs" you see in pictures are not evidence of anything except faulty photography.
That is one hurdle which is impossible to get across.
However, if ESP cannot be repeated or verified (such as a once in a lifetime event), then there is nothing that can be said about it. However, in the Skeptical Community, claims that sound like "I can't reproduce my power for such and such reason" is usually seen as an ad hoc. In any case, its not justifyable as evidence.
Yes, the police have in fact used Psychics. However, while mysteries have been solved with Psychics along side, the Psychics really don't do anything. That might sound a bit undermining and cynical, but it is true.
I don't believe psychics solve crimes by "Random Luck" because they don't help at all, they waste the police's time.
There are cops who will tell you that this is ridiculous. What else can I say? The most impressive cases that I am aware of seem to leave little doubt that the psychic provided exactly the information needed. On at least one occasion the information was so impressive that the psychic was arrested and held for a time.
Evidence for ESP? No. Here is why:
I am fairly certain this event was just this psychic's lucky day
?
(I see someone else has already linked the Skepdic.com article). However, interpreting that luck as evidence for the paranormal would be at error.
Prove it was luck.
Psychics are notorious for leaving their "predictions" extremely vague. For instance, if I said "the life of a political figure will end in the near future", what does it mean? Which political figure? Does "life ending" mean die naturally or get killed? What is the time span of "near future"?
At least to me, I think telling the President not to act out of security ordinance for personal appeal is commonsense.
You seem to focus on TV psychics. Who on TV is credible; psychic or not? The really interesting stuff comes from personal experiences. It is hardly fair to point to the pop media for anything genuine in any subject. Heck, in my experience the evening news can't even be trusted.
It seems to me that weather prediction is about as accurate as Jean Dixon.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It seems to me that weather prediction is about as accurate as Jean Dixon.
Originally posted by pallidin
Is there even a single thread of evidence for paranormal phenomenon? Or is that whole subject just some weird interpretations of ordinary events?
Originally posted by wasteofo2
Define paranormal. Would a yeti or other cryptid species be a paranormal event? If so, then there are footprints, footage, photos, hair samples resempling but not matching those of any known primate and many testimonies of bigfoot creatures.
Originally posted by master_coda
If you simply consider these to be ordinary animals, then I wouldn't consider it to be paranormal. The paranormal usually starts to creep in when people try to explain away their failure to actually find such a creature.
For example, some people seem to think that that Loch Ness monster is somehow invisible to all sonar. The idea that the monster might not exist doesn't seem to occur to them.
Originally posted by wasteofo2
People actually think that the loch ness monster is undetectable by radars? I've never heard anything like that before.
Originally posted by master_coda
It's only an explanation that I heard once. It was just part of a chat I had with someone on MSN. Their views weren't exactly "mainstream", even for fans of nessie.
I was only trying to give an example of what I think it takes for something to be paranormal.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What really gets me about this so called conclusion - that the SONAR sweeps prove that Nessie does not exist - is that it ignores such an obvious possibility. IMO, It is shameful that this opinion is touted as a "scientific opinion".
Originally posted by master_coda
Sonar sweeps don't prove that Nessie doesn't exist. But they are evidence against the existence of Nessie.
He's probably talking about scientific evidence. If an experiment is not repeatable, it fails scientifically. The claims are thus judged scientifically invalid.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What would you consider evidence; say for instance in the case of an alleged ghost?
Also, consider claims of ESP. If this exists but cannot be repeated on demand, then how do we gauge the claims?
Originally posted by russ_watters
He's probably talking about scientific evidence. If an experiment is not repeatable, it fails scientifically. The claims are thus judged scientifically invalid.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
As for Loch Ness, this should not be considered paranormal, nor should any alleged Bigfoot for that matter.
Originally posted by SkinWalker
You mean a giant leviathan living in a loch that cannot support it with enough biomass for food, much less the twenty or so in a breeding population that would be the minimum needed to allow the species to survive for many generations?
I'd say that would make it paranormal. A normal beast of that size would deplete the food source in a few days.
Yep.Originally posted by wahoo q
In my mind alleged creatures like nessie and sasquatch are totally removed from the paranormal and belong in the cryptozoology category.
Maybe. But I have to invoke burden of proof again: Its not up to anyone to prove ESP doesn't exist (insert the obvious caveat about proving a negative), its up to those who claim ESP does exist to prove it. Scientifically. Until they do, their claims must be assumed to be false.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is not to be confused meaning that the claims are untrue. It only means that scienctists have not been smart enough to figure out better tests.
No, I would agree they are not paranormal. But they do fall into the same larger category of pseudoscience as ghosts and ESP.Yetis, Nessies, Champs, Sasquatches, Aliens, Gnomes, Pegasuses, Unicorns, Smurfs, could all very well exist in perfect accordance of scientific law, they are not paranormal.
Originally posted by russ_watters
Maybe. But I have to invoke burden of proof again: Its not up to anyone to prove ESP doesn't exist (insert the obvious caveat about proving a negative), its up to those who claim ESP does exist to prove it. Scientifically. Until they do, their claims must be assumed to be false.
In another thread you seemed to suggest that only a test that scientists consider unscientific could prove a certain ESP effect and complained about the catch-22 it put you in. I won't budge on that. If an ESP proponent is going to have any chance of convincing a scientific body of the existence of ESP, they will need a test that passes scientific scrutiny. Period. The scientific method cannot be weakened to allow what are now considered flawed tests to be used as real evidence.
You may be interested in a thread in the philosopy forum on the scientific method and why we use it.
No, I would agree they are not paranormal. But they do fall into the same larger category of pseudoscience as ghosts and ESP.
You have inadvertantly created a strawman. The underlined part is the strawman.Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This however is not a declaration of truth. It is an artificial construct to define the accepted standards of science. To imply that something that can't be tested can't be or is not true is to make philosophy or even a religion of science. Science cannot be proven to be comprehensive - and even more the case without a TOE.
String Theory has a bit more credibility (i.e. Math and generally accepted laws to back it up), its not comparable to that of the paranormal. Dont try to put String Theory in the same boat with metaphysics.Note that we can't test String Theory either. Why don’t we put subject in the Philosophy Forum, or the S&D forum? Where's the evidence for String Theory? So far, it sounds like philosophy to me.
Another test:I have never suggested that we use an unscientific test to obtain scientific evidence. I argue that we may not have conceived tests that are proper for the task. Really this is the same as to say that most psychics are fake; I don't think this stuff can be done on demand, and I think the evidence would support this assertion. So, until we can conceive of a better test or measurement for transient and unpredictable experiences, or until we conceive a mechanism to explain claims of ESP, science can claim neither truth nor falseness. We can only say that no scientific evidence exists thus science can draw no conclusions.
Repeat for dramatic effect:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You know that!
"Evidence" of the paranormal comes in a few forms:The work of science is for scientist - not psychics. John Edwards and such, these people really do not interest me. Beyond these are the experiences of people everyday, all over the world, that seem to indicate that some kind of ESP does exist.
Pseudoscience is not a method. Pseudoscience is a word that means "theory or facts put down as scientific when they are clearly not scientific".Pseudoscience is any improper method of doing science; not a personal claim, and surely not honest investigation of these claims.