Thread: No Evidence of the paranormal?

If you see something you can't explain, that's what it is, unexplained. "Unexplained therefore crazy theory" doesn't work very well.

Originally Posted by kingerman

By your own question you are asking about the supernatural world. How do you expect to discover evidence about the supernatural by means of a methodology designed for the natural?

There is no such thing as the supernatural. What we call supernatural are actually just natural events that we do not currently have a sceintific explaination for.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

If you see something you can't explain, that's what it is, unexplained. "Unexplained therefore crazy theory" doesn't work very well.

Just like when sseeing something fly in the air you don't know what it is, is called a UFO (unidentified flying object).

There is no such thing as the supernatural. What we call supernatural are actually just natural events that we do not currently have a sceintific explaination for.

It's probably like saying "theory". Not that it's a theory, just a name we use untill we know more about it and call it what it is.

You don't believe in ghosts, but you believe in angels and demons? Oh, my...

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

It's probably like saying "theory". Not that it's a theory, just a name we use untill we know more about it and call it what it is.

Not exactly, in scientific terms 'theory' is as good as it gets.

I swear half of the people on this forum have never heard of the Theory of Gravitation.

Jesus H. Christ...

When in doubt, use Occam's Razor! Which is more simple a solution: freaky-ass coincidence, video editing combined with people seeking fame and such, or invisible spirits that are tangible only at will? The paranormal is a load of crock. Ditto for demons and angels and such.

Originally Posted by O'nus

And why not? It's a perfectly good experiment. The spiritus ought not to have to have your eyes open in orderto communicate on a board.

~

It seems like a logical experiment, however I wouldn't say it is accurate. There are numerous astral entities, and some of them, say, may need your eyes? There's various channelings and communications with entities from other realms. Blocking that will result in a negative conclusion either way, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by really

It seems like a logical experiment, however I wouldn't say it is accurate. There are numerous astral entities, and some of them, say, may need your eyes?

Well then, we might as well say that the reason the person would fail the test is because Jesus is there to make sure no beliefs in astral entities can be explained rationally or observed objectively. Since we all know how important blind faith is to him. Or maybe these astral entities are controlled by subastral entities which is what both the astral and the subastral ones aren't aware of. So when we try to do a controlled experiment with a blind fold, the subastral ones unconsciously disable the powers of astral beings. Or maybe they are all myths and games perpetrated by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

This if, if, if speculation is senseless. We all have an imagination and we can all make things up so nothing can ever be proven. This totally undermines the point of searching for truth. I'll never understand why you'd want to make things up to bend reality around your beliefs, but if that's what you do then fine... *end rant*

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Well then, we might as well say that the reason the person would fail the test is because Jesus is there to make sure no beliefs in astral entities can be explained rationally or observed objectively. Since we all know how important blind faith is to him. Or maybe these astral entities are controlled by subastral entities which is what both the astral and the subastral ones aren't aware of. So when we try to do a controlled experiment with a blind fold, the subastral ones unconsciously disable the powers of astral beings. Or maybe they are all myths and games perpetrated by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

This if, if, if speculation is senseless. We all have an imagination and we can all make things up so nothing can ever be proven. This totally undermines the point of searching for truth. I'll never understand why you'd want to make things up to bend reality around your beliefs, but if that's what you do then fine... *end rant*

I understand well what you're saying, but O'nus' logic still rejects all possibility that there are astral entities "on the other side". They cannot be proven, but neither can blindfolding the person involved disprove them. I think there is ignorance in the divergence of the lower astral / lower spiritual realm with the persona and therefore it is not 100% provable or accurate. There are for example, more psychic people that channel information from other astral dimensions, yet they have no rational connection to what is reported afterward. If you tell them to only think rationally to see if their mind is "making it up", it doesn't disprove this. It is related to a different realm. I really do not have much more to say, and I'm not 100% sure, but I think I can understand the flaw in the experiments.

Why has nobody won this yet?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Originally Posted by Xei

I swear half of the people on this forum have never heard of the Theory of Gravitation.

You mean Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation? That doesn't always work, relative gravity has to be used at high speeds or in super-dense materials. And even Relative Gravity doesn't always work

Ghosts don't exists, neither do demons. As a scientist, one must admit that there are things that we don't yet understand, however without evidence, no, there is nothing paranormal.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why has nobody won this yet?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

Because

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Because

I offer $1 million to anyone who can prove that your post's post's article disproves the trueness of the offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove paranormal truth.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I offer $1 million to anyone who can prove that your post's post's article disproves the trueness of the offer of $1 million to anyone who can prove paranormal truth.

I offer nothing for anyone who will read it - except, maybe, a more informed opinion.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I offer nothing for anyone who will read it - except, maybe, a more informed opinion.

Maybe I can be more informed about Dennis Rawlins' "sTARBABY" claims when we get past the "Who the Hell is Dennis Rawlins?" and "tl;dr" factors. Can you sum up the specifics of the claims? I don't feel like reading a book's worth of information that is posted on a cheap web page by a nobody. I get that the guy who offered the prize supposedly falsified data, but what did the data concern, and what is the evidence that the data was falsified? Also, who is Dennis Rawlins, other than what the astrology organization's page claims he is-- a former member of a skeptic organization? Does he coach P.E. at Boaz, Alabama Elementary? I can create a web page that looks like that, and I can claim that the Illuminati has copies of porno films Ronald Reagan and Elvis made with the brocholi people from Neptune.

Edit: By the way, I'm not making fun of you. I'm making fun of the sea of crazy web sites that are out there. Thanks for mentioning the article. It is relevant to this discussion because it at least brings up the idea that Randi has been altering evidence, which is a logical consideration concerning my question.

The million dollar challenge is just one way of illustrating what is a very strong argument.

We can also notice that despite live shows being aired all the time everywhere, someone displaying an obvious supernatural feat live has yet to be seen. Or that in all of the world's Universities and research labs no evidence of the paranormal has been discovered. Etc.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Maybe I can be more informed about Dennis Rawlins' "StarBaby" claims when we get past the "Who the Hell is StarBaby?" and "tl;dr" factors. Can you sum up the specifics of the claims?

Well...

DENNIS RAWLINS is a cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979. Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer.
He holds degrees in physics from Harvard University (B.A.) and Boston University (M.A.). His researches have been published in Nature, Astronomical Journal, American Journal of Physics, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and other leading publications in the fields of astronomy, geophysics, geography and history of science. He is the author of Peary at the North Pole: Fact or Fiction? (1973) and was the first to release public news of a major ESP scandal (in 1974) at the laboratory of the late J.B. Rhine. Rawlins, 44, and his wife Barbara live in San Diego, Calif.

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rawlins

The article is about:

EVER SINCE it came into being the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) has proudly proclaimed itself the scourge of the "new nonsense": astrology, ESP, UFOs and other phenomena of which it does not approve. Its pronouncements on these and other subjects have received widespread attention and uncritical acceptance in the news media.

Critics such as Fate, professional parapsychologists and moderate skeptics like former CSICOP cochairman Prof. Marcello Truzzi, sociologist at Eastern Michigan University, have questioned the Committee's commitment to objective, scientific investigation of paranormal claims and have accused some CSICOP spokesmen of misrepresenting issues and evidence. But such dissenting views were little noticed by media writers eager to headline sensational -- although frequently unsupported -- debunking claims.

The story that follows, written by a man who is himself skeptical of the paranormal, confirms what critics of CSICOP have long suspected: that the organization is committed to perpetuating a position, not to determining the truth.

A lot of it has to do with:

Originally Posted by The Mars Effect

The Mars effect is a name often used to refer to a reported statistical correlation between athletic eminence and the position of the planet Mars relative to the horizon at time and place of birth. This controversial finding was first reported by the French psychologist and statistician Michel Gauquelin who, in his book L'influence des astres ("The Influence of the Stars", 1955), the first rigorous study of astrological claims,[1] suggested that a statistically significant number of sports champions were born just after the planet Mars rises or culminates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_effect

As far as the Randi Challenge, itself; I question its validity, just as I do anything else. And I've come to almost welcome the undeniable fact that there is easily as much reason to doubt that Randi would be honest in his gimmick, as there is to believe that a person with ESP would have already won it.

The Randi Prize
Randi's main claim to fame is that he offers a million dollar prize to "any person or persons who can demonstrate any psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under satisfactory observing conditions". According to the James Randi Educational Foundation web site, "JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed."

The conditions for the prize are set out on the JREF web site Randi challenge

The rules are conceived by a showman not a scientist, and make little sense from a genuinely scientific point of view. The introduction to the rules states, "All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required." Most scientific research, including research in particle physics, clinical medicine, conventional psychology and parapsychology, depends on statistical results that need to be analysed by experts to judge the significance of what has happened. Practically all serious scientific research would fail to qualify for the Randi prize.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...ics/index.html

The man's entire career has, and will be, dedicated to perpetuating the idea that the 'paranormal' doesn't exist. He has, arguably, more at stake than these hypothetical people accused of 'actually having powers and just not coming to take Randi's challenge.' All that Randi has at stake is immediately tangible. He's already based his livelyhood on it. I don't think neither one of us has to debate the power of greed; desire for status; an image; a reputation; etc. Not to immediately assume that Randi is guilty of this, by any means, but it's something to consider.

Just out of sheer curiosity, though; I'd like for you to tell me the worst case scenario, if you were a person with 'abilities' - quite possibly not full-fledged "powers" (on the scale that we think of with superheroes and whatnot), but say you could move something the size of a needle with your mind. Seriously, would you trade that annonymity for some - as yet, unconfirmed - money? What could you imagine (on a realistic level) your life would be like, after the world found out that 'superpowers' exist, and you're the only person known to man that has actually has one?

Originally Posted by really

It seems like a logical experiment, however I wouldn't say it is accurate. There are numerous astral entities, and some of them, say, may need your eyes? There's various channelings and communications with entities from other realms. Blocking that will result in a negative conclusion either way, wouldn't it?

What a lousy excuse. So there is no way to prove the legitimacy of the ouija then?

What of the spectator? Cannot the spirit use their eyes then?

For example, "Oh spirits, can you see through the eyes of our friend?" (yes) "Okay then" (blind folds on).

Would not that then be reasonable?

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What a lousy excuse. So there is no way to prove the legitimacy of the ouija then?

I don't think so. It is not as logical as it seems. We're dealing with other dimensions.

Originally Posted by O'nus

What of the spectator? Cannot the spirit use their eyes then?

For example, "Oh spirits, can you see through the eyes of our friend?" (yes) "Okay then" (blind folds on).

Would not that then be reasonable?

~

I don't think this is reasonable because it negates the entire purpose of what is happening for another. Sure you can be skeptical and try to prove it, but what I'm saying is that is unreliable. Same deal with "paranormal" million dollar proof. By nature, it's not something you can do.

I just don't understand how something as easy to do as Remote Viewing keeps getting ignored. There is plenty of evidence to support it, and even better, it's something anyone can do with very little effort. It's something I've personally done and and I'm satisfied there is something to it.

Influencing or putting images into people's dreams is also something that's very easy to do. It's also been researched and experimented with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKiBRWAiZn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nZ6cOeNaEE

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The man's entire career has, and will be, dedicated to perpetuating the idea that the 'paranormal' doesn't exist. He has, arguably, more at stake than these hypothetical people accused of 'actually having powers and just not coming to take Randi's challenge.' All that Randi has at stake is immediately tangible. He's already based his livelyhood on it. I don't think neither one of us has to debate the power of greed; desire for status; an image; a reputation; etc. Not to immediately assume that Randi is guilty of this, by any means, but it's something to consider.

Thanks for the summary. Yeah, it is something to consider.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Just out of sheer curiosity, though; I'd like for you to tell me the worst case scenario, if you were a person with 'abilities' - quite possibly not full-fledged "powers" (on the scale that we think of with superheroes and whatnot), but say you could move something the size of a needle with your mind. Seriously, would you trade that annonymity for some - as yet, unconfirmed - money? What could you imagine (on a realistic level) your life would be like, after the world found out that 'superpowers' exist, and you're the only person known to man that has actually has one?

I would absolutely collect the million dollars and go celebrity. As far as things to do to win a million dollars in a very short amount of time, there really is not much I would not do. There is close to nothing. Some things would mess with my conscience too bad, and some things are too disgusting, but I don't think there are any limits beyond those. Pain and the threats of humiliation and loss of anonymity wouldn't have any chance of stopping me. I would speed down the interstate and sprint to where I could win $1 million for moving a needle with my mind. I would be seen as a freak or devil worshipper for the rest of my life by some people and would probably get hounded by obnoxious idiots every time I went out in public, but they can screw off. I want my money.

Originally Posted by really

I don't think so. It is not as logical as it seems. We're dealing with other dimensions.

Oh I see; you preposition the topic of hand as "being outside reason". Therefore, it cannot be reasoned or justified.

Makes a lot of sense.

You can also do the same with cotton candy fairies. They are beyond natural reason, therefore, they exist.

I don't think this is reasonable because it negates the entire purpose of what is happening for another. Sure you can be skeptical and try to prove it, but what I'm saying is that is unreliable. Same deal with "paranormal" million dollar proof. By nature, it's not something you can do.

What kind of nonsense is this? At first you say it is beyond our dimension, but now it is restricted to our eye-sight? It seems you are just taking whichever route seems most unfalsifiable. Do you understand the concept of that? Judging by your new thread, which I will soon address, you rely far too much on unfalsifiable means as a means to truth.

Just because you say it is beyond our natural world does not mean it is true. I can say the same thing about imaginary concepts and flying donkey angels.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh I see; you preposition the topic of hand as "being outside reason". Therefore, it cannot be reasoned or justified.

Makes a lot of sense.

You can also do the same with cotton candy fairies. They are beyond natural reason, therefore, they exist.

No, the conclusion is: Therefore, an attempt to either prove or disprove them is unreliable. However, "cotton candy fairies" are far out of the picture here. What is your take on psychic phenomena that is correct then, is it simply a matter of pure "luck"?

Originally Posted by O'nus

What kind of nonsense is this? At first you say it is beyond our dimension, but now it is restricted to our eye-sight? It seems you are just taking whichever route seems most unfalsifiable. Do you understand the concept of that? Judging by your new thread, which I will soon address, you rely far too much on unfalsifiable means as a means to truth.

Just because you say it is beyond our natural world does not mean it is true. I can say the same thing about imaginary concepts and flying donkey angels.

~

Flying donkey angels! Hahaha, that's awesome! Nope I'm not relying on the unfalsifiable for the sake of being unfalsifiable - that just happens to be one of the "attributes" one could reasonably give the "claim".

As for what I was saying before: Basically, in other words, I think that perhaps our eyes are not necessarily used for our own means (as it would seem to skeptics), but through other illogical and astral means. There are more things that occur with Ouija boards than simply spelling words; those words that correlate with multiple circumstances yet while standing outside rational proof or the claim of "personal decision," you might say.