Christ Centered Gamer

Sstavix wrote: For example, look at George Washington. I've never met George Washington. Have you ever met George Washington? Have you ever met someone who has claimed to have met George Washington? No? Neither have I. So who knows if George Washington actually existed? Sure, there are history books, but those are merely attempts to perpetuate the falsehoods of George Washington - they can't be real. It's like the Goldstein character in "1984." George wrote things? Nope - someone else writing under a pen name. Maybe that Thomas Jefferson fellow... he was smart enough to pull a con like this. No, George Washington never existed, and anyone who says otherwise is lying!

It's like my ludicrous argument about Bangladesh. Basically, if you're willing to ignore any evidence proving that you're wrong, then you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

This is a little bit different than eyewitness testimony in, say, a legal setting (though it is similar, I'll grant you that). With history, you are ultimately relying on accounts of eyewitnesses. But the job of the historian is to sift through the accounts (and by accounts, I also include things like photographs, audio, video, data, etc) and try to determine what the most likely situation is. With more modern history, it becomes easier to determine "truth" because of many disparate (this being the key here) accounts that tell approximately the same story. With George Washington, we have accounts by both British and American sources (who were not on the best of terms back then) that describe his existence. We also have portraits, documents bearing a consistent signature (an indication that, if you decide to think Washington isn't real, the hoax was at least consistent), birth dates and death dates from different sources that match record keeping of the time.

Now, you can still dismiss all of this, but this is where I like to use Occam's Razor: "Among competing hypothesis, the one with the least assumptions should be selected". It's hardly an assumption that records would be kept back then, but still a small one. However, it is a MUCH larger assumption to say that, for instance, Thomas Jefferson forged all of these documents. That would require assuming that he had access to the records of dates of birth and death, that he was able to convince multiple disparate sources to say the same thing, and that he could have commissioned multiple portraits of the same fictional fellow.

*begin slight tangent*

Ancient history is quite a bit different though, as most records either didn't survive, or were heavily distorted over the ages. One of the biggest keys is reference to landmarks, or other physical evidence that does survive to this day (for instance, radiometric or otherwise dated artifacts). For instance, if historical source Sstavix says that there was a city named Sstavixville ( ) that existed around 550 BCE, and we find artifacts from the described location of Sstavixville that can be dated back to circa 550 BCE, then we can reasonably conclude that this is most likely the city referred to by source Sstavix (though it says nothing about the name).

*end slight tangent *

Now that my history nerd is satisfied...

So going back to ghosts for a minute, let's consider the eyewitness testimony. Many disparate sources have reported similar phenomena, going back for years. So that naturally implies that something consistent is happening, though it does not afford the conclusion of *what* is causing the phenomena.

Now consider the evidence scientific study shows (I don't have any sources on hand, but this from a textbook I had in high school) that most of the situations described can be attributed to known phenomena: hearing footsteps? A shifting foundation and/or shifting frame can cause creaking that occurs at intervals spaced such to be considered footsteps. It also causes other weird phenomena. I've witnessed this myself; in college I lived in a 50+ year old house that creaked and shifted all the time. The doors would randomly swing open (THAT was fun...coming home to find the front door wide open, panicking thinking you'd been robbed) because the house had shifted enough that the bolt slid out of the latch. I noticed this when I tried to close said door and the latch wouldn't catch. The deadbolt worked fine because it was longer and would have required physically removing the door to get out. It all stopped after that.

Other known phenomena often attributed to ghosts include shifting pictures (foundation shifting), falling objects (can't tell you how many times that happened in our house, but again shifting and/or microquakes), "whispering" (in our case, it was the AC ducts in the attic that were failing), and my personal favorite: moving objects.

Let's discuss objects that seemingly move on their own for a second. Actually seeing them move of their own volition is one thing (and to this day, I don't think there's been a scientific study done that could capture it in a controlled environment that couldn't also be explained by shifting houses or earthquakes), but if you come into a room and things aren't where you left them? In my case, it was either housemates (they did that a lot...) or just really bad memories. I once swore I had put my keys down, spent 10 minutes frantically looking for them, only to discover them in my jeans pocket, right where they always were...

That's the other reason testimony of the supernatural is often suspect: it often involves highly charged emotional responses, which have been shown to distort memory. Or it involves such benign things that your recall is bad. Do you remember the clothes you wearing last month? Do you really remember the last time you moved that spoon?

I'm not saying this explains all of the cases. But it explains a really good chunk of them.

So with that in mind (that known phenomena can explain things without assumptions), which requires more assumption: that ghosts exist and have never been detected by scientific study before; or that situations involving supposed ghost activities somehow don't involve the repeatable, testable phenomena that I described and that the dead can exist in the world as entities after their earthly demise?

For me, the first has the least assumptions. A demonstrated, tested hypothesis carries fewer assumptions than an untestable, undemonstrated one simply that by showing things, they no longer become the same kind of assumption.

That's how I view ghosts. Unless a new breakthrough occurs, the easiest explanation is that they don't exist, and that there is an explanation for it.

ArchAngel wrote:As in the people who advocate the existence of ghosts. What are they always on about? Besides making really poor night-vision TV where they wet their pants when they hear a noise.

Yeah, Arch. All people who believe in ghosts are like that. You really nailed it.

ArchAngel wrote:Absolutely do I disdain the subject, when pricks and cons like John Edwards take money from grieving parents so he can lie in their ears.

Hold on just a second there, Broamir. Frauds like John Edwards have about as much to do with ghostly phenomena as a jackhammer has to do with a ham & cheese sandwich. Edwards is a fraud and a liar, I agree, but his shtick is to claim to communicate across the veil, not to see ghosts. (Unless he's changed his M.O. at some point. I try to ignore him as much as possible.)

ArchAngel wrote: And you know what, I wouldn't say I'm open to it.

Which is perfectly fine if that's how you want to approach it, but that's not being scientific. Are you acknowledging there are other tools for understanding the universe besides science?

I think we've gotten to the point of agreeing to disagree, which is fine

You know, it might be fun at some point to start a thread about the topic of ghosts specifically, since it's Halloween time and all. Not necessarily for debating but just to share stories.

ArcticFox wrote:Yeah, Arch. All people who believe in ghosts are like that. You really nailed it.

Well, no, most of them are superstitious, but in the modern context, the Ghost Hunter types are no small part of the "crowd."

ArcticFox wrote:Hold on just a second there, Broamir. Frauds like John Edwards have about as much to do with ghostly phenomena as a jackhammer has to do with a ham & cheese sandwich. Edwards is a fraud and a liar, I agree, but his shtick is to claim to communicate across the veil, not to see ghosts. (Unless he's changed his M.O. at some point. I try to ignore him as much as possible.)

Well, fine, add him to list of BS. This stack can grow.

ArcticFox wrote:Which is perfectly fine if that's how you want to approach it, but that's not being scientific. Are you acknowledging there are other tools for understanding the universe besides science?

Haha, no. Because I don't take ghosts seriously, I'm not scientific?

There is no scientific basis for ghosts. Until you bring me one, I'm not going to treat it as a scientific concept. What's unscientific about that?

Sstavix wrote:

ChickenSoup wrote: It doesn't invalidate it, and I'm not throwing out eyewitness testimony. What I'm arguing is that eyewitness testimony is terrible as a sole piece of evidence. 12 people say they saw John Doe murdered by Jim Bob? All right, that's a start. Now we investigate Jim Bob--turns out, Jim was recorded by a traffic camera running a red light 200 miles away. Well, I guess 12 people were wrong about Jim Bob. Thank God we didn't convict on eyewitness testimony alone.

But what if it was Jim Bob's twin in that car, or a friend that disguised himself as Jim Bob? Evidence can be tampered with, too.

Like how people can fake supernatural occurrences, and so we should be doubly careful in our investigations in case eyewitnesses are tricked?

ChickenSoup wrote: Frankly, I'm not sure why you guys trust eyewitness testimony so much. And remember, before you respond--I'm NOT disregarding it entirely. I'm arguing the following points:

1) Memory is pretty dang corruptible--add emotionally charged events, degradation of memory/recall over time, individual bias, confirmation bias in post-event research, group dynamics and the influence of that on recall, and you have a pretty poor source of evidence, regardless of whether 1 person saw something or 1,000 people saw it.

2) Following point 1, eyewitness testimony should never, ever, ever be used as the sole evidence in determining truth. 1,000 people saw something? 1,000 people can be wrong. Yes, they saw something, but that doesn't mean that it is what they thought it was. You cannot extrapolate further facts and draw conclusions from that alone.

3) HOWEVER, eyewitness testimony can be a good guide toward further investigation. 1,000 people saw a strange flying object in the skies above Chicago? That doesn't mean UFO's not only exist but also frequent crappy American cities--it means that 1,000 people saw a strange flying object in the skies above Chicago. We conduct more thorough research from that point.

A big part of it might be because of our faith. We take it on faith that the witnesses who wrote their accounts in the Bible were honest in their experiences (and with AF and myself being LDS, we take it even further into the foundations of our church as well). In fact, you could look at history as eyewitness accounts, too.

For example, look at George Washington. I've never met George Washington. Have you ever met George Washington? Have you ever met someone who has claimed to have met George Washington? No? Neither have I. So who knows if George Washington actually existed? Sure, there are history books, but those are merely attempts to perpetuate the falsehoods of George Washington - they can't be real. It's like the Goldstein character in "1984." George wrote things? Nope - someone else writing under a pen name. Maybe that Thomas Jefferson fellow... he was smart enough to pull a con like this. No, George Washington never existed, and anyone who says otherwise is lying!

Except there's other evidences of his existence aside from just people talking about him. Anyway, I don't want to get caught up in this side-example. I already told you that I believe eyewitness testimony is a good guide to get an investigation started (or to supplement an investigation). Where do you draw the line?

It's like my ludicrous argument about Bangladesh. Basically, if you're willing to ignore any evidence proving that you're wrong, then you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

Except... it's not ignoring evidence. In fact, I specifically said that I don't disregard eyewitness testimony. I just take it with a grain of salt--and a bigger one than with other forms of evidence--and use it as a starting point for further investigation (i.e. "Hey, people seem to be seeing a large hairy bipedal mammal in forests of North America. They all say bigfoot--maybe we should get more evidence before we make a claim.")

If all objective evidence points to A, and a couple people who are just super duper sure what they saw is what they saw point to B, I'm going to trust A more than B. People used to be absolutely convinced that epilepsy was the result of demonic possession. Thousands of people must have been so appalled by such a spectacle that the only logical and reasonable conclusion at the time would be supernatural.

Except, oops, objective scientific evidence has pointed to a much more mundane explanation in neuron misfiring.

Also, this hits home for me:

ArchAngel wrote:I don't have to pretend just because someone claims they seen or experienced something, that it's automatically valid.

Seriously. It is a bit off putting to me to assign so much credibility to eyewitness accounts.

Once again, I'm not dismissing all eyewitness accounts by default... but pretending that discarding baseless claims is unscientific is a little exasperating. No, desire for objective evidence does not make us closed-minded, it makes us skeptical and logical creatures Why should I trust the claim of 1,000 people who have each been scared out of their minds at a supposedly haunted house? They obviously couldn't keep a good presence of mind in that situation. What, should I give them extra credit because they're nice people? No, that's not how it works.

Did they see/hear/feel something? Yes. That is a fact that I am not disputing. Did they see/hear/feel something supernatural? Well, that would require evidence beyond "the plate moved itself across the table I swear on me mum."

Deepfreeze32 wrote:

Sstavix wrote: For example, look at George Washington. I've never met George Washington. Have you ever met George Washington? Have you ever met someone who has claimed to have met George Washington? No? Neither have I. So who knows if George Washington actually existed? Sure, there are history books, but those are merely attempts to perpetuate the falsehoods of George Washington - they can't be real. It's like the Goldstein character in "1984." George wrote things? Nope - someone else writing under a pen name. Maybe that Thomas Jefferson fellow... he was smart enough to pull a con like this. No, George Washington never existed, and anyone who says otherwise is lying!

It's like my ludicrous argument about Bangladesh. Basically, if you're willing to ignore any evidence proving that you're wrong, then you can convince yourself of pretty much anything.

This is a little bit different than eyewitness testimony in, say, a legal setting (though it is similar, I'll grant you that). With history, you are ultimately relying on accounts of eyewitnesses. But the job of the historian is to sift through the accounts (and by accounts, I also include things like photographs, audio, video, data, etc) and try to determine what the most likely situation is. With more modern history, it becomes easier to determine "truth" because of many disparate (this being the key here) accounts that tell approximately the same story. With George Washington, we have accounts by both British and American sources (who were not on the best of terms back then) that describe his existence. We also have portraits, documents bearing a consistent signature (an indication that, if you decide to think Washington isn't real, the hoax was at least consistent), birth dates and death dates from different sources that match record keeping of the time.

Now, you can still dismiss all of this, but this is where I like to use Occam's Razor: "Among competing hypothesis, the one with the least assumptions should be selected". It's hardly an assumption that records would be kept back then, but still a small one. However, it is a MUCH larger assumption to say that, for instance, Thomas Jefferson forged all of these documents. That would require assuming that he had access to the records of dates of birth and death, that he was able to convince multiple disparate sources to say the same thing, and that he could have commissioned multiple portraits of the same fictional fellow.

*begin slight tangent*

Ancient history is quite a bit different though, as most records either didn't survive, or were heavily distorted over the ages. One of the biggest keys is reference to landmarks, or other physical evidence that does survive to this day (for instance, radiometric or otherwise dated artifacts). For instance, if historical source Sstavix says that there was a city named Sstavixville ( ) that existed around 550 BCE, and we find artifacts from the described location of Sstavixville that can be dated back to circa 550 BCE, then we can reasonably conclude that this is most likely the city referred to by source Sstavix (though it says nothing about the name).

*end slight tangent *

Now that my history nerd is satisfied...

Actually, it's worthwhile that you mentioned ancient history, because my silly argument about George Washington sort of echoes the claims that some people have made about Jesus Christ (and, sometimes, God in general). It's why logic, science and reason may not be completely reliable when researching claims like these - people need other tools in order to investigate the veracity of the accounts related in the Bible. The point I've been trying to make is that someone can't rely solely on science, logic and reason when exploring spiritual matters.

ArchAngel wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:Hold on just a second there, Broamir. Frauds like John Edwards have about as much to do with ghostly phenomena as a jackhammer has to do with a ham & cheese sandwich. Edwards is a fraud and a liar, I agree, but his shtick is to claim to communicate across the veil, not to see ghosts. (Unless he's changed his M.O. at some point. I try to ignore him as much as possible.)

Well, fine, add him to list of BS. This stack can grow.

I think I'm missing something here. John Edwards... the politician?

ArchAngel wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:Which is perfectly fine if that's how you want to approach it, but that's not being scientific. Are you acknowledging there are other tools for understanding the universe besides science?

Haha, no. Because I don't take ghosts seriously, I'm not scientific?

There is no scientific basis for ghosts. Until you bring me one, I'm not going to treat it as a scientific concept. What's unscientific about that?

Actually, I think he's referring to not applying scientific methodology to examining the veracity of ghost claims. Now perhaps you've already done this in your earlier investigations and, as you've indicated, you've found nothing to satisfy your own criteria. What AF is implying, I believe, is that, since you don't apply the same discretion to every claim that crosses your desk, you're relying on your preconceived notions and discoveries and coming to the conclusion that every claim is false. In other words, if you're not applying a logical, analytical process to them all, then it can't really be considered legitimate scientific research.

ChickenSoup wrote: Like how people can fake supernatural occurrences, and so we should be doubly careful in our investigations in case eyewitnesses are tricked?

Pretty much, yes.

Basically, what I've been trying to say is that all elements should be factored in to understanding the phenomena being investigated. Sometimes, all you have is eyewitness testimony. Sometimes, you don't even have that. But people shouldn't be hesitant to use all of the resources available to investigate the claims of ghosts, aliens, Bigfoot, or whatever.

Now, to pull it back to the topic at hand, I think the point I've been trying to make is that people tend to do exactly this when they limit themselves solely to logic, scientific methodology and other examinations of the material world. These tools are very useful when examining and exploring the material world (or universe, if you prefer). But if you're trying to explore the spiritual side of man? The tools fall woefully short - they aren't designed to explore and analyze the spiritual nature or questions. Yet people insist on using these tools anyway. And when they predictably fail, instead of trying to figure out a different approach, they jump to the conclusion that it doesn't exist. It's like the analogy that Bronan's has used in the past - it's like trying to use a flathead screwdriver to undo the lugnuts from your wheel. No matter how you try, it's not going to work. Does that mean it's impossible? Of course not - you just need to use different tools!

And now we get back to some of the points that Broamir made earlier....

Archangel wrote: Well, there are certain things that have been shown we'll never know. Maybe that'll change, but it's not out the question certain knowledges can never be. Actually, I'd say probably and plausible that we couldn't know somethings.

...

It's hard to imagine unobtainable knowledge.

I would have to disagree with this position. In fact, I'd disagree vehemently, because it's a defeatist attitude. I believe that it is possible to know the truth behind anything and everything. The real challenge is figuring out how, where and when to obtain this knowledge. And that involves using every tool that you have available, not just limiting yourself to the ones you are comfortable with.

Sstavix wrote: I think I'm missing something here. John Edwards... the politician?

No, this John Edward. He claims to be a medium who can communicate with the dead and used to have a TV show about it.

Sstavix wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:

ArcticFox wrote:Which is perfectly fine if that's how you want to approach it, but that's not being scientific. Are you acknowledging there are other tools for understanding the universe besides science?

Haha, no. Because I don't take ghosts seriously, I'm not scientific?

There is no scientific basis for ghosts. Until you bring me one, I'm not going to treat it as a scientific concept. What's unscientific about that?

Actually, I think he's referring to not applying scientific methodology to examining the veracity of ghost claims. Now perhaps you've already done this in your earlier investigations and, as you've indicated, you've found nothing to satisfy your own criteria. What AF is implying, I believe, is that, since you don't apply the same discretion to every claim that crosses your desk, you're relying on your preconceived notions and discoveries and coming to the conclusion that every claim is false. In other words, if you're not applying a logical, analytical process to them all, then it can't really be considered legitimate scientific research.

Yeah prettymuch this. Sstavix, as usual, said it better

Actually, I think he's referring to not applying scientific methodology to examining the veracity of ghost claims. Now perhaps you've already done this in your earlier investigations and, as you've indicated, you've found nothing to satisfy your own criteria. What AF is implying, I believe, is that, since you don't apply the same discretion to every claim that crosses your desk, you're relying on your preconceived notions and discoveries and coming to the conclusion that every claim is false. In other words, if you're not applying a logical, analytical process to them all, then it can't really be considered legitimate scientific research.

I know you're addressing Arch here, but I wanted to say something.

I'd venture a guess that the claims brought to the table either don't actually bring anything new to the table or don't put forth any actual objective or scientific evidence. (actually, I'm pretty sure he's said this multiple times in multiple threads). Is he supposed to pour over every eyewitness testimony that claims they saw [insert paranormal phenomenon here]? No, because it's still just that: a frightened person who saw something they didn't understand.

To insert a completely fictitious scenario, let's say that someone performed an exorcism on a violent (but previously timid) young man. They produce objective measurements of some kind that are interesting--I have no idea what it would be, but let's say they set up a thermal imaging camera over the bed. Turns out, every time the "subject" thrashed violent against his tethers, unbeknownst to the observers at the time, huge radiating heat waves shot out his eyes and mouth. Toward the end, rapid head fluctuations were observed in the patient, and after the demon was expelled, a huge surge of heat could be observed to apparently "Exit" the subject and dissipate through the ceiling.

THAT'S something new to the table. Another story with no recordings or objective measures taken isn't really bringing anything new to the table that can be re-evaluated by third parties. Also, there's the whole "people lie on the internet" deal, so subjective measures and stories are pretty shaky--why waste all that time reevaluation something you've thought about hundreds of times already when there's no actual new evidence?

ChickenSoup wrote: To insert a completely fictitious scenario, let's say that someone performed an exorcism on a violent (but previously timid) young man. They produce objective measurements of some kind that are interesting--I have no idea what it would be, but let's say they set up a thermal imaging camera over the bed. Turns out, every time the "subject" thrashed violent against his tethers, unbeknownst to the observers at the time, huge radiating heat waves shot out his eyes and mouth. Toward the end, rapid head fluctuations were observed in the patient, and after the demon was expelled, a huge surge of heat could be observed to apparently "Exit" the subject and dissipate through the ceiling.

THAT'S something new to the table. Another story with no recordings or objective measures taken isn't really bringing anything new to the table that can be re-evaluated by third parties. Also, there's the whole "people lie on the internet" deal, so subjective measures and stories are pretty shaky--why waste all that time reevaluation something you've thought about hundreds of times already when there's no actual new evidence?

But that is at least investigating the claim. Even if you set up the equipment expecting to find nothing (and, in fact, your scenario doesn't pan out and nothing is picked up on the thermal cameras), you set it up anyway. Because that is the analytical, scientific approach to it. An immediate rejection of such a claim just because it's never been seen before and never been proven can be legitimately justified, but it can't be said to be a scientific, analytical approach. It's an assumption based upon prior experiences.

EDIT: Here, let's modify the scenario. Instead of looking for ghosts, let's look for aliens!

Suppose a NASA scientist has a press conference. "We at NASA have discovered 1,000 planets in the galaxy," he announces. "Using our tools, we've been able to analyze data from 300 of them. From what we've found, none of them are capable of supporting life as we know it.

"Therefore, we feel comfortable in officially announcing that there is no other life in the universe. It's just us out here in space, folks. Since none of the planets we've looked at can support life, then there is no other life out there."

"Hang on..." you're probably saying (at least, that's what I'd be saying). "If you've discovered 1,000 planets and have only looked at 300 of them... what about the other 700? And is it really safe to make those assumptions about all those planets you haven't discovered yet?"

What do you think? Is this NASA scientist right in his generalization that there's no such thing as aliens, or do you think it's too early to come to such a conclusion, and more data needs to be gathered?

But that is at least investigating the claim. Even if you set up the equipment expecting to find nothing (and, in fact, your scenario doesn't pan out and nothing is picked up on the thermal cameras), you set it up anyway. Because that is the analytical, scientific approach to it. An immediate rejection of such a claim just because it's never been seen before and never been proven can be legitimately justified, but it can't be said to be a scientific, analytical approach. It's an assumption based upon prior experiences.

That's on the principal investigator, though. That's the point I'm making: If you're going to whine about science-types rejecting claims based on anecdotal evidence, at least bring a scientific claim to the table. You're asking Arch why he rejects all these claims, and we're saying it's because it's only anecdotal. It's not up to him to meet with every single one of them, run the scenario again, and collect data. There is not a burden on him to disprove the claim, there is a burden of proof on the person making the claim.

EDIT: Here, let's modify the scenario. Instead of looking for ghosts, let's look for aliens!

Suppose a NASA scientist has a press conference. "We at NASA have discovered 1,000 planets in the galaxy," he announces. "Using our tools, we've been able to analyze data from 300 of them. From what we've found, none of them are capable of supporting life as we know it.

"Therefore, we feel comfortable in officially announcing that there is no other life in the universe. It's just us out here in space, folks. Since none of the planets we've looked at can support life, then there is no other life out there."

"Hang on..." you're probably saying (at least, that's what I'd be saying). "If you've discovered 1,000 planets and have only looked at 300 of them... what about the other 700? And is it really safe to make those assumptions about all those planets you haven't discovered yet?"

What do you think? Is this NASA scientist right in his generalization that there's no such thing as aliens, or do you think it's too early to come to such a conclusion, and more data needs to be gathered?

First of all, kudos on making the scenario a little more relatable and simple XD

Anyway. Personally, I'd think that they would need to investigate further. I think you might have the argument mixed up a little (forgive me if I am misreading this, though): in this situation, Arch is the person hearing the claim, not the scientist who investigated the planets. When people come forward saying that they've witnessed something paranormal, the burden of proof is on them, not on us to personally set up a scientific experiment to test the claim. If someone wants to add credibility to their claim, it's on them to do that. I (and, I imagine, Arch) don't have time to travel around the country and do that myself

In fact, in your situation, the scientist making the claim that there is no possibility for other life in the galaxy is analogous to the person claiming to have witnessed something supernatural. Come back with more evidence, and we'll listen. Until then, we've poked enough holes in it that it's worth moving on to more interesting presentations.

ChickenSoup wrote: Anyway. Personally, I'd think that they would need to investigate further. I think you might have the argument mixed up a little (forgive me if I am misreading this, though): in this situation, Arch is the person hearing the claim, not the scientist who investigated the planets.

The opposite, actually. Arch - or anyone else who fits the criteria - would reflect the scientist. "Just because we've never found any evidence of X, we conclude that X does not exist."

ChickenSoup wrote:When people come forward saying that they've witnessed something paranormal, the burden of proof is on them, not on us to personally set up a scientific experiment to test the claim. ... I (and, I imagine, Arch) don't have time to travel around the country and do that myself

But suppose the ones making the claims don't have the equipment or materials to make a claim that the scientific or skeptical community would accept? That's where independent verification comes into play.

To return to the story of the Indiana "demon house," after reading about it, I followed up and read some of the articles and analyses that were released after the initial story. From what I've read, none of the previous tenants of the house reported any such disturbances, the family who reported the instances haven't shown any past behavior - or future behavior - echoing their experiences, and nothing has been conclusively discovered. Based on the further research I've done - including eyewitness reports from the previous tenants (e.g. "We never saw anything like that,") I'm inclined to think that it's a hoax as well (especially given my typical "follow the money" approach to things. Who stands to profit from this?). But I've actually done some research into it, rather than simply brushing it off as "impossible."

Sstavix wrote: The opposite, actually. Arch - or anyone else who fits the criteria - would reflect the scientist. "Just because we've never found any evidence of X, we conclude that X does not exist."

The astronomers are making the claim, and Arch is judging it. Demon house family say "Demon house," and Arch is judging it. So...

But suppose the ones making the claims don't have the equipment or materials to make a claim that the scientific or skeptical community would accept? That's where independent verification comes into play.

Too bad so sad, I guess? Also, who the heck has the time to do that for every single claim that comes their way? You have to prioritize what you're going to dump time into. At least, as everyday citizens trying to make sense of the world. But even as a scientist, you'd want to start with the most credible claims backed by the best evidence.

To return to the story of the Indiana "demon house," after reading about it, I followed up and read some of the articles and analyses that were released after the initial story. From what I've read, none of the previous tenants of the house reported any such disturbances, the family who reported the instances haven't shown any past behavior - or future behavior - echoing their experiences, and nothing has been conclusively discovered. Based on the further research I've done - including eyewitness reports from the previous tenants (e.g. "We never saw anything like that,") I'm inclined to think that it's a hoax as well (especially given my typical "follow the money" approach to things. Who stands to profit from this?). But I've actually done some research into it, rather than simply brushing it off as "impossible."

Congrats on the find, I guess? If they wanted to make an actual argument, they should have presented data. They didn't have any, and as such they didn't present it. As you found, it turned out to probably be nothing. That's the HuffPost clickbait for you, I guess. Like I said before: the people making the claims of evidence need to be the ones to bring data to the table. This "well, we need to thoroughly investigate everything that comes our way, no matter how vague OR IT ISN'T ACTUALLY SCIENCE" mindset is well-intentioned but somewhat impractical, you know? I don't mean for science in general, I mean for us in our individual determinations of belief.

Yes, we must be open-minded, but that doesn't mean that every claim that comes our way has equal merit. An important part of the process is maintaining a healthy level of skepticism. "I DUNNO MAN, THESE PEOPLE SAY A GHOST SMOTHERED THEIR BABY." Well, that's terribly sad--is there anything backing it up? "Well, they saw a thing in the room and it did the stuff." Not to be rude to the family, but no video or... anything other than a story? "No but eyewitness accounts and the such." ...ok, any other sources? "Their baby is dead." Look, I have to study for an exam. If anything credible comes up, let me know.

Actually, let's keep it far simpler. "Well, this Huffington Post article tells the spooky tale of the paranormal at this house!" "Yeah, I doubt it." "NOT A SCIENTIST." I guess? I don't understand why the burden would be on us to go prove it wrong.



EDIT: Let me clarify/reiterate one thing: I'm differentiating something here without saying it up front, and due to the medium through which we communicate being so prone to misunderstanding, let me be more clear. I'm talking about you and me in our daily lives and belief establishment as opposed to a scientist working in a given field. I mean, a lot of it stays the same--the astronomer you talked about in your example would still have the burden of proof. However, if a couple people started seeing a monstrous creature in the woods west of Atlanta, curious biologists in the area could certainly go out and conduct an investigation themselves (rather than scoff and tell the concerned citizens to go get some proof before making claims).

The problem at hand is that we hear accounts from all over the country thanks to the internet and it becomes hard to do things like that. You gave an example in Indiana. What, is Arch supposed to drive to California and help the people set up scientific equipment? I know you're just asking that he consider everything carefully, the point of the matter is that stories come up all the time, and many of them are--let's face it--just people outright lying. Until they bring something verifiable and valid and new to the table, there's not really much to consider. At best, you confirm that people think they saw a ghost. ...great. after the 300th claim with no real evidence, it gets pretty irritating when people get up in arms for brushing some off.

"BUT YOU'RE A SCIENTIST, AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO EXAMINE EVERYTHING"
"What new evidence does this one have?"
"WELL

...

IT'S ANOTHER EYEWITNESS"
"Get out."

How timely! I just came across this article from a former Lockheed-Martin employee who says that aliens exist, and that he has proof.

So which is more believable? The engineer talking about aliens, or the Indiana family who claims their house was possessed by demons? And why?

How about neither? XD

ChickenSoup wrote:How about neither? XD

Fair enough. I was skeptical, too.

For the record, I'm not denying how cool it would be >_>