The Limits of Knowledge: Is John Edward Real?

[JaredJames]

[Edit by Ivan: Discussion moved from another thread]

This thread has been dead for almost a year.

First of all before I say if I think he is real or not I must tell you that I used to live for many years in a haunted house so I KNOW that spirits are real whether they come from dead people or not I am not sure.

Not to sound too harsh, but your "knowing they exist" is no different to me "knowing they don't exist". Do you have evidence to back up your claims or do we have to take your word?

With regards to John Edward, I really don't think that most of you who have commented below have actually watched his shows. He does not just give a letter for a name, he also gives the sound of the name and, as a mathematician, I can tell you that the chances of picking a very similar sounding name starting with the correct letter from a small area of the audience time and again is absolutely minute. Also to put people in the audience week after week would DEFINITELY be found out and spread all over the papers, so I think we can dismiss that as well. He also OFTEN tells people that the info. they are giving him is wrong and he gives them specific names and information that they have to go away and check up later. No other 'psychic does this.
As for the great Randi. He debunks but strangely enough with for example Yuri Geller, Randi can NEVER actually duplicate any of Geller's 'tricks' the same way that he does it which is why Geller has offered him 100,000 dollars if he can actually do any of his 'tricks' the same way that Geller actually does.
So, is John Edward the real thing? IF it is possible to contact the dead then he is the real thing. If not then he does not use any of the tricks mentioned below.

It's all trickery. Proven over and over by many people to be fraudulent. Cold reading and various other techniques are very apparent in all of these types of shows (if you know what to look for) and it isn't mystical. It only appears so when watched on TV (welcome to the world of editing).

If any of these people were real, they would claim Randi's million in a heartbeat. Why don't they?

Regarding the Yuri - Randi situation, there is a difference between being able to duplicate a magic trick and being able to debunk it. I know how various tricks are done but I can't perform them.

So far as these people go, they fail at even the simplest tests. There are countless videos out there showing this so I recommend youtube.

 

[FlexGunship]

<table border="2" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><tr><td border="1" align="center"><b>The following is my carefully reasoned opinion. Any resemblance to reality is absolutely coincidental and totally intentional. No offense is meant to anybody about anything!</b></td></tr></table>

The following is my carefully reasoned opinion. Any resemblance to reality is absolutely coincidental and totally intentional. No offense is meant to anybody about anything!

First of all before I say if I think he is real or not I must tell you that I used to live for many years in a haunted house so I KNOW that spirits are real whether they come from dead people or not I am not sure.

Unfortunately, your reliance on assertion by fiat doesn't do your argument justice. The value of eye-witness accounts as opposed to physical evidence is hotly debated in these forums. However, one thing seems to be certain, humans are not the bastions of observational prowess we feel we are.

Given (a) that spirits don't exist, and (b) that you assert their existence, you might find a very small audience here in the PHYSICS Forums.

With regards to John Edward, I really don't think that most of you who have commented below have actually watched his shows. He does not just give a letter for a name, he also gives the sound of the name and, as a mathematician, I can tell you that the chances of picking a very similar sounding name starting with the correct letter from a small area of the audience time and again is absolutely minute.

I suppose that depends upon your definition of "very similar." Judging from the material that made it to television, he's not even very good at that. I guess that means the stuff they cut is a magnitude worse. Seriously, if he's listening to spirit voices how come he can't tell the difference between "Mary" and "Marge?" Seems like that would be the difference between "I'm happy now" and "I'm crappy now."

Regardless, it's a null statement. Your credentials as a mathematician hardly outweigh your credentials as a human being. You are equally susceptible to being tricked as non-mathematicians. Perhaps your sense of "un-trickability" makes you even feel immune to being tricked, which makes you all the better target for tricks.

Also to put people in the audience week after week would DEFINITELY be found out and spread all over the papers, so I think we can dismiss that as well.

I hardly think you need a plant in the audience to perform this particular type of tom-foolery.

He also OFTEN tells people that the info. they are giving him is wrong and he gives them specific names and information that they have to go away and check up later. No other 'psychic does this.

Uhhhh... Rosemary Atlea was famous for it. She would be wrong all the time, but she was so gosh darn confident about it that people took her word for it. For those of you reading this that aren't familiar with the trick, it goes like this:

Psychic: Your grandfather was in a war.
Victim: Uh, no, actually.
Psychic: Um, your other grandfather?
Victim: No.
Psychic: (smugly) You should check up on your family history, you have new things to learn!

It's not impressive.

As for the great Randi. He debunks but strangely enough with for example Yuri Geller, Randi can NEVER actually duplicate any of Geller's 'tricks' the same way that he does it which is why Geller has offered him 100,000 dollars if he can actually do any of his 'tricks' the same way that Geller actually does.

Two things wrong here. Firstly, he has done Gellar's tricks: ().

Secondly, whenever Randi tries to claim the money (for charity, of course), Gellar claims he did the trick with REAL psychic powers, not sleight of hand. Given that psychic powers don't seem to exist (at all, for anyone), Gellar has created a prize that no one can win.

To recap: Gellar does a sleight-of-hand trick and claims it's magic. When Randi does the same thing, Gellar says: "Nope, you did it with sleight-of-hand."

Hardly compelling.

So, is John Edward the real thing? IF it is possible to contact the dead then he is the real thing.

Doesn't that just ring with weirdness?! Could you use that sentence on any other topic?

• "If it is possible to eat 100 apples, then he did it."
• "If it is possible to go inside that building, then he did it."

If not then he does not use any of the tricks mentioned below.

He's a cold reader. That's what he does. My assertion is as good as your's.

EDIT: Site doesn't support HTML in posts

 

[JaredJames]

Given (a) that spirits don't exist, and (b) that you assert their existence, you might find a very small audience here in the PHYSICS Forums.

Flex, I can see the infraction coming a mile off.

Again, you are asserting your opinion as fact.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (I thank DaveC for reminding me of the exact wording of that one).

I personally agree with you there, however, I cannot make a statement such as that to be fact without evidence to back it up. There is none.

I'm flagging this now, before anything happens. Please don't see this as a personal attack as once again, I'm just pointing out the issue and why it isn't allowed here.

EDIT: (I pointed out the same thing to the previous poster regarding asserting fact based on an opinion.)

 

[FlexGunship]

Flex, I can see the infraction coming a mile off.

Again, you are asserting your opinion as fact.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (I thank DaveC for reminding me of the exact wording of that one).

Look at the header to my post. It states that I'm spouting opinions. Clearly. Since Squishy set the trend, I'm only answering in kind.

Furthermore, absence of evidence certainly isn't evidence of existence. Just because no evidence exists for something doesn't make its existence and nonexistence equally likely. Russel's Teapot is all too often used to permit any kind of language in any discussion, that's not the point of the Teapot!

The point is that even when there is no proof either way, we can draw on our understanding of principle surrounding the Teapot's existence to come to a reasoned conclusion. Because we have no evidence of it does not mean we should seriously consider its existence. We can draw on our understanding of Lagrange points, modern rocketry, the history of China teapots, and political and economic motives to conclude that, almost certainly, there is no Teapot in orbit around Mars.

True, we cannot prove that ghosts don't exist, however, we can draw on our knowledge of human psychology, physics, and the history of China teapots to conclude that, almost certainly, there are no ghosts.

Anyone asserting the existence of ghosts must explain the mechanism by which they propagate. However, someone asserting their nonexistence must only explain how an individual could become confused. They are not equal hypotheses and should not be discussed as such.

 

[JaredJames]

I've never said that the lack of evidence against ghosts (or anything) is a reason to take their existence seriously.

You have to understand, if you make a claim, you must back it up with evidence, as per PF guidelines.

If you claim ghosts exist, you have to back it up. If you claim they don't exist, you have to back it up.

I honestly don't take ghosts seriously, but if I say "they don't exist", I have to provide some proof for that claim. That's the way it works, and at the moment, there is none.

This argument is identical to the time travel thread.

 

[FlexGunship]

If you claim ghosts exist, you have to back it up. If you claim they don't exist, you have to back it up.

Read that carefully.

If you follow those rules there is no way to disprove the existence of a non-existent thing. Ever. Under any circumstances

Allow me to further postulate:

The non-provability of the existence or non-existence of something is necessarily (though not exclusively) a property of non-existent things.​

Are we in agreement, at least to this point?

EDIT: for clarity and formatting

 

[JaredJames]

Read that carefully.

If you follow those rules there is no way to disprove the existence of a non-existent thing. Ever. Under any circumstances

Allow me to further postulate:

The non-provability of the existence or non-existence of something is necessarily (though not exclusively) a property of non-existent things.​

Are we in agreement, at least to this point?

Your bold and underlined statement is pretty much correct.

However I think I should add that I know what you're saying, but I'd say we can disprove the existence of a non-existent object.

A simple example would be someone making a statement such as "there is a planet between Earth and Mars". Now, we know what the non-existent object is and can disprove this as we a) have a definition of what constitutes a planet - we know what we're looking for and b) have the ability to check to see if something fitting that definition exists.

Once we know what we are proving/disproving the existence of, we can generate a conclusion based on evidence for/against it's existence.

Now I point these two out as different (albeit a rather poor example regarding planets) because we can provide evidence against one claim ("planet between Earth and mars"), and so we can back up said claim and come to a reliable conclusion.

We cannot provide evidence that ghosts do/don't exist. In just the same way we can't prove God doesn't exist. We can certainly make an educated guess. In this case, we can say that based on the number of 'ghostly' occurences being false or explainable and these explanations applicable many other occurences too, it is ok to assume ghosts do not exist.
But it is worth noting that you can't state that as a fact. Because we can't back it up with any evidence.

I would like to offer you the definition of fact as it applies to science:

a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

We cannot verify that ghosts don't exist, therefore we cannot claim it as fact. We can apply opinion and we can state hypothesis regarding ghosts, but we can't state it as factual. This is what your posts seem to be doing.

Like I've said countless times previously, I dismiss the whole notion of ghosts and the like, but that doesn't make me correct. It simply means I've made what I consider and informed decision based on available evidence (which is nowt).

 

[FlexGunship]

I would like to offer you the definition of fact as it applies to science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science

We cannot verify that ghosts don't exist, therefore we cannot claim it as fact. We can apply opinion and we can state hypothesis regarding ghosts, but we can't state it as factual. This is what your posts seem to be doing.

I will give this more consideration. You have a good point, but I believe you are painting with too broad a brush. Where claims of pseudo-science (or non-science) are concerned, it seems premature to simply judge them as "out of bounds" for science.

Let me elaborate:

Statements about the existence of things are within the realm of science. That is to say: either ghosts DO exist or they DO NOT. The correct answer is a factual statement (even if we don't know what the correct answer is). To say that there are some truths which cannot be known by science seems to negate the idea of a truth (or the idea of science).

Lastly, we can all agree that there exists some body of evidence which COULD prove the existence of ghosts. Right? It doesn't seem justified to say that there is no body of evidence which could disprove ghosts. Otherwise, you are left with an open set of all things non-disprovable as being possibly existent.

I, for one, am in the camp that SOME things must not exist.

 

[JaredJames]

Statements about the existence of things are within the realm of science. That is to say: either ghosts DO exist or they DO NOT. The correct answer is a factual statement (even if we don't know what the correct answer is).

Yes, I agree. Ghosts either DO or DO NOT exist. The correct answer may be a factual statement, but that doesn't mean we have it. There are a lot of topics (such as in the time travel thread) which we can only speculate about and produce our own hypothesis on. This does not make our hypothesis correct, and it certainly doesn't make it factual. To be a fact, it must be verifiable. We cannot verify the non-existence of ghosts. We can only judge how likely their existence is.

To say that there are some truths which cannot be known by science seems to negate the idea of a truth (or the idea of science).

Science may want to explain everything, but that doesn't mean it will.

Lastly, we can all agree that there exists some body of evidence which COULD prove the existence of ghosts. Right?

Agreed

It doesn't seem justified to say that there is no body of evidence which could disprove ghosts. Otherwise, you are left with an open set of all things non-disprovable as being possibly existent.

It may not seem justified, but if we cannot prove it, it can't be considered factual.

I, for one, am in the camp that SOME things must not exist.

Me too, this doesn't mean I can prove they don't exist though. This is the key here.

 

[FlexGunship]

It may not seem justified, but if we cannot prove it, it can't be considered factual.

This is just itching to be a fallacy...

Things which lack the quality of existing cannot be shown to lack this quality?

EDIT: Wouldn't that mean that science could say nothing about things that do not exist? Or do you disagree?

 

[Opus_723]

Where claims of pseudo-science (or non-science) are concerned, it seems premature to simply judge them as "out of bounds" for science.

That's exactly the point. You have just defined the topic as "non-science." Therefore science cannot make any judgement on the matter.

I think the idea is that spirits are by definition not subject to any known physical laws, therefore we cannot make observations related to them with current instruments. We can prove the non-existence of a planet because our definition of a planet places it firmly within the constraints of physical science. A spirit does not share this characteristic.

It's all about how you define a thing. The online Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "spirit" as

"a supernatural being or essence."

Now we need the definition of supernatural. Here we get:

"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"

I believe that very effectively places spirits outside the realm of current science.

Both a spirit and a planet could be subject to undiscovered properties of the universe. We could discover that spirits are composed of some previously unobservable material, eventually producing instruments that can observe them. Or a "planet" could be found between Earth and Mars, but made of some previously unobservable material.

I put "planet" in quotation marks there because this new planet would most likely fall outside of our previous definition of planet. It would be, essentially, a "spirit planet," in this category of currently unobservable objects.

My point is that some things are currently not in the realm of science because they are defined as unobservable to begin with. They cannot be proved because they are unobservable, and they cannot be disproved because they could at any time become observable. Things can be proven not to exist, but only if they are defined as being currently observable.

 

[squasher]

In reply to jarednjames. When you say 'Not to sound too harsh, but your "knowing they exist" is no different to me "knowing they don't exist". Do you have evidence to back up your claims or do we have to take your word? Knowing they do not exist cannot be said. what you mean is that you have had no proof. However in my case I was a sceptic like yourself until I moved into the house in question. I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts. However when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof. I have had visitors stay who have 'met' the ghost. One person was a HUGE sceptic before staying at the house. Many many more things happened. It was only after leaving the house that I discovered its history.
It is true that even though I have absolute proof I cannot show it to you but you are welcome to go to the house and do whatever tests you wish.
With regard to Randi and his debunking. To debunk something you must be able to do the same thing under EXACTLY the same circumstances to prove it is a fake. I can make a car drive at 50 miles an hour without any engine. No magic. I just push it down a steep hill, but that is not the same as doing it on the flat, and that is where Randi falls down on occasions. He has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove they are not fake. Geller has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove he is a fake. He may well be a fake but no one as yet can prove it and that is where the problem lies.
With regards Geller and John Edward I cannot give proof one way or another but with regards 'ghosts' then I can categorically state that something does exist, and so can visitors and people who lived in my old house. Even if you did go to my house and found that I am correct then what would you say to people who don't believe you afterwards?

 

[JaredJames]

Things can be proven not to exist, but only if they are defined as being currently observable.

All of that response and you finish with this line.

This is key. Regardless of why it is so, we can't prove it so we cannot state it as fact.

I'm not saying they do exist. I'm not saying it's likely they exist. Just that you cannot make a statement that X does not exist without backing it up.

There are some things we can prove exist / don't exist, but there are others (as you outline above) which by their very nature cannot be.

As previously stated, facts have to be verifiable. Ghosts are neither verifiable for or against and so the best we can do is say they might exist or they might not.

Belief in ghosts is a personal thing and strictly based on opinion. They are not factual and as I've said countless times before, that means you can't state it as such.

 

[FlexGunship]

My point is that some things are currently not in the realm of science because they are defined as unobservable to begin with. They cannot be proved because they are unobservable, and they cannot be disproved because they could at any time become observable. Things can be proven not to exist, but only if they are defined as being currently observable.

Hardly seems like the topic for a Physics Forum, then.

 

[JaredJames]

Knowing they do not exist cannot be said. what you mean is that you have had no proof. However in my case I was a sceptic like yourself until I moved into the house in question. I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts.

Yeah, I don't like IQ tests. They don't indicate intelligence in any way. According to Mensa I have an IQ of 156. If you've ever met me you'd know I'm distinctly 'normal' of slightly above average intelligence.

You made a claim that ghosts exist. That is a big claim and one which can only stand up with evidence to back it up.
Yes, I mean I've "had no proof" which is why I asked for it.

However when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof.

This sounds really interesting. But, as I've said countless time before regarding 'wierd' occurences, if something like that happens (especially clothes moving and being neatly ironed and folded) why wouldn't you set up cameras straight away? One way or another, you'll either get videos of this stuff happening or it will stop (as most 'ghost' issues do on camera - and the problem is solved).

I have had visitors stay who have 'met' the ghost. One person was a HUGE sceptic before staying at the house. Many many more things happened. It was only after leaving the house that I discovered its history.

Witness testimony is unreliable at best, especially if they know the sort of things that occur within the house.

It is true that even though I have absolute proof I cannot show it to you but you are welcome to go to the house and do whatever tests you wish.

See statement regarding cameras above.

With regard to Randi and his debunking. To debunk something you must be able to do the same thing under EXACTLY the same circumstances to prove it is a fake. I can make a car drive at 50 miles an hour without any engine. No magic. I just push it down a steep hill, but that is not the same as doing it on the flat, and that is where Randi falls down on occasions.

Claiming "I can make a car go 50mph without an engine" is different to claiming "I can make a car go 50mph down a steep hill without an engine". It is a significant difference.

If you make the first claim, it is right of Randi to ask you to do it on the flat. That way he eliminates any issues with you using a hill to assist in the challenge. It is called a controlled test. You eliminate all outside influences so that only the claimant is able to affect the car and get it to go 50mph.

He has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove they are not fake.

Correct. If you claim you can dowse for water, then you should be able to identify which of the 50 buckets the cup of water is under.

Geller has offered a large sum of money to anyone who can prove he is a fake. He may well be a fake but no one as yet can prove it and that is where the problem lies.

There's no problem. It is not up to Randi to disprove his claims. If he claims he can do something it is up to him to prove it. If Randi sets up a controlled experiment and asks him to perform, why shouldn't he be able to?

It's a fallacy he is extending to request people debunk him. As above, it is not up to people to prove you are fake, it is up to you to back up the claims you have made. He can't do that so he simply says "ah well, prove I'm fake then". Something which can't be done without testing such as Randi's.

In a previous post someone mentioned Randi did replicate what Geller does but Geller dismissed it. If this was truly how it worked, I could simply dismiss every single attempt to debunk what I do leaving only the paranormal.

With regards Geller and John Edward I cannot give proof one way or another but with regards 'ghosts' then I can categorically state that something does exist, and so can visitors and people who lived in my old house. Even if you did go to my house and found that I am correct then what would you say to people who don't believe you afterwards?

If I went to your house and experienced it, I would immediately want to setup some controls. Put cameras in every room, check for possible explanations.

With regards to the bolded statement, I'll take that as your opinion. But as in previous posts, without proof you can't state it as fact.

 

[JaredJames]

Hardly seems like the topic for a Physics Forum, then.

Agreed.

 

[FlexGunship]

I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts.

No comment.

However when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof.

Clothes folding: I will pay you $1000 for every time you can reproduce this event under repeatable, observable conditions. (EDIT: i.e. ghostly folding. I'm not interested in burglars folding your clothes, or you forgetting that you folded them. If you could demonstrate what you are talking about, you'd win the Nobel prize for physics.)

EDIT: As a metric for discussion, perhaps topics the author declares as "outside of science" or "un-disprovable" should be classified as non-existent until proof does surface. This will provide a stop-gap for the constant inclusion of all things non-existent but conceivable in discussion.

 

[JaredJames]

Clothes folding: I will pay you $1000 for every time you can reproduce this event under repeatable, observable conditions. (EDIT: i.e. ghostly folding. I'm not interested in burglars folding your clothes, or you forgetting that you folded them. If you could demonstrate what you are talking about, you'd win the Nobel prize for physics.)

I know for verification we'd need it repeatable and observable, but let's go with it for now.

If your clothes were ironing and folding themselves, enough times to cause concern, why would you not setup some sort of camera? These claims are all well and good, but the solution is keep things simple and go with the obvious. Stick a camera on the wall.

Put one in every room if you have to. If things are actually moving around the house by themselves the cameras will catch it.

There have been countless times I've done something and then forgotten I've done it. This problem is amplified when there's more than one of you at the location.

Person A moves the phone from the kitchen to the dining room. Person A then forgets they did it. Person B goes to get the phone from the kitchen only to find it's not there, but is now in the dining room. B questions A regarding it's moving. A denies ever touching it. Obvious conclusion is not "it must be ghosts". But that is what most people go to for some reason.

I have a terrible memory. I've walked up the street (100yds) to my grandparents and forgot why I went there. I'm not saying that everyone is like this, but it's something I factor in when looking at stuff like this.

EDIT: As a metric for discussion, perhaps topics the author declares as "outside of science" or "un-disprovable" should be classified as non-existent until proof does surface. This will provide a stop-gap for the constant inclusion of all things non-existent but conceivable in discussion.

Personally, I don't believe anything is "outside of science". Although if it's going to be declared as such it doesn't belong here.

I personally don't accept any of these claims of existence until I see proof to back them up.

 

[DaveC426913]

"I used to live for many years in a haunted house so I KNOW that spirits are real..."
"...It was only after leaving the house that I discovered its history..."

"...when you are in a house where lights switches flick on and off by themselves, doors open and close by themselves, things get moved from room to room, clothes get taken from one area and appear in another neatly folded and ironed (we did not possesses an iron at the time) I consider this proof..."

"I am not a stupid person - I am a physiologist and have an IQ of 146 and used to be a government statistician so I am used to hard facts."

Which one of these would you like us to believe? They are not both true.

Either way, you have demonstrated sufficiently that your reputability is highly subjective and is to be regarded with a shaker of salt.

 

[FlexGunship]

Personally, I don't believe anything is "outside of science".

Certainly claims of physical events (closing of doors, ironing of clothes, etc.) are scientific claims. It would be hard to convince anyone that clothes, themselves, are paranormal.

Science really does have a say when it comes to claims of the paranormal. Any paranormal claim is based on an observation of some sort, and any observation is within the realm of science. Even if we agree the cause may be paranormal.

Here's the deal. Science, as a tool, has acknowledge it can't prove negatives (Squishy as pointed this out). You can't, for example, prove there are no unicorns. Oddly, however, it is always possible to prove they do exist.

Therefore, one of the properties of all things that don't exist is that you can never prove they don't exist. Likewise, since they don't exist, you can never prove that they do exist.

Anything non-existent that you can postulate as existing can never be shown to exist or not to exist. Thusly, it has permanent residence on the list of things that "might exist." If we are entirely unwilling to rely on scientific knowledge in related areas to deal with this scenario, then we are permanently crippled.

Example: ants wearing homemade top hats.

We can all agree that there are no ants wearing top hats. We know this because ants lack the skills to devise the most basic means by which to even build the tools to merely MAKE a top hat, let alone the cognitive faculties to then WEAR it. However, there are no ways to prove they don't exist and we are forced to conclude that they might exist. If anyone checks all of the ants in the world, one could simply postulate that hat-wearing ants are devilishly good at hiding, or worse, that the hats makes them invisible.

Still, there is good news, we can rely on our knowledge of ants and top hats to come to a solidly scientific conclusion that ants can neither make nor wear top hats. Perhaps someday this will change, but everything we know about ants and top hats points towards this conclusion. Is it a proof? Not technically, but it is a viable scientific conclusion.

Likewise, everything we know about conservation of energy, and neural physiology tell us that there no way to survive your own death (and become a spirit). Our understanding of human psychology, cognitive biases, and fear of death help us to explain why we might expect to see spirits or ghosts.

It is not un-scientific to draw the conclusion that ghosts do not exist. Of course, perhaps someone will discover evidence to the contrary, but that particular piece of evidence has eluded scientists and non-scientists alike.

The default claim of non-existence stands. The burden of proof is squarely on the claimant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Personally, I don't believe anything is "outside of science".

Of course there is.

Who we are in the dark - our character - our personal beliefs about how Right and Wrong plays out in the larger picture - whether we believe there is a larger picture.

These are all things that scientific inquiry has nothing to say about.

Perhaps what you are thinking of is not science but logical inquiry.

 

[JaredJames]

1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

I'd say that covers everything. Perhaps I'm being too broad with the definition?

I firmly believe that everything can (or at least has the potential to be) explained by science.

 

[DaveC426913]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/science

I'd say that covers everything. Perhaps I'm being too broad with the definition?

I firmly believe that everything can (or at least has the potential to be) explained by science.

Explain ghosts as understood by the spritiually adept.

Science has this to say: "OK, well, um, I can't tell you that you are not seeing the lost souls of the dead, but that is an awfully nice opinion you have there. Did someone say 'cake'?"

 

[FlexGunship]

Who we are in the dark - our character - our personal beliefs about how Right and Wrong plays out in the larger picture - whether we believe there is a larger picture.

These are all things that scientific inquiry has nothing to say about.

Surely science has something to to say about personality, behavior, personal beliefs, and morality.

Our behavior (and personality, by extension) are direct results of chemical reactions in the brain. The stage upon which these chemical reactions play out has been formed by both previous chemical reactions and genetics. Certainly autism research has much to say about the behavior of an individual (http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/63/7/786). Even violence has a strong neurochemical link (http://umbral.uprrp.edu/files/The%20Biology%20of%20Violence.pdf ).

Morality is an area of deep philosophical discussion, but that doesn't mean that science has nothing to say about it. Some people (not I, of course) find homosexuality to be a question of morality. However, science tells us that there could be a strong genetic and chemical link here (http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~mboyle/COGS11/COGS11-website/pdf-files/LeVayHamer-sexual-dimorphism-sci-am-1994-debate.pdf ). Here, science and morality intersect at right angles; this is not a glancing blow.

And finally, as personal beliefs go, there is still active research into the idea that susceptibility to religion is actually a genetic trait. This is not a new idea (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7147-genes-contribute-to-religious-inclination.html). Certainly there are no conclusions, but to call this "non-scientific" is wrong in the highest degree.

If it is real, science has something to say about it. Even if the reality of the matter at hand is nothing but a "feeling" we have when we are alone at night in bed.

 

[JaredJames]

Explain ghosts.

I've already said I dismiss the whole concept of ghosts in exactly the same way I dismiss a god(s).

So as far as I'm concerned there's nothing to explain.

However, I do believe that the experiences people have, which are described as ghostly experiences are fully explainable, and that there is nothing magical/mystical about them.

Put simply, I think they can all be debunked.

EDIT: You edited your post after I typed this and responded. Although even with your additions, I still think this applies. I dismiss the whole "talking to the dead" stuff and the like in exactly the same way. If you believe you have paranormal powers (or make any claims for that matter), prove it. If it can be proven to exist, under experimentally controlled conditions, I will amend my opinion. Until such a time, it stands.

 

[FlexGunship]

Explain ghosts as understood by the spritiually adept.

Explain the spiritually adept as understood by clinical psychologists.

Joking aside, there's nothing here to explain. In fact, the challenge is a null statement. Until something surfaces that suggests the existence of non-corporeal entities there's really nothing to explain.

What we could work on explaining are all of the documented cases where something is mistaken for a ghost (or the like). In fact, in other threads, some members of this forum are already doing it.

Thus far, for every claim of the paranormal an equally likely (or significantly more likely) explanation has been available which does not rely on pseudo-science or the paranormal.

 

[mugaliens]

Your bold and underlined statement is pretty much correct.

I concur.

I'd say we can disprove the existence of a non-existent object.

However, now you're contradicting yourself.

A simple example would be someone making a statement such as "there is a planet between Earth and Mars". Now, we know what the non-existent object is and can disprove this as we a) have a definition of what constitutes a planet - we know what we're looking for and b) have the ability to check to see if something fitting that definition exists.

Qualifier: Only if the object in question adheres to the principles by which it's existence is being tested, i.e. "we know what we are looking for." In your example, we'd be looking for a planet made of ordinary matter and existing in normal space-time.

We cannot provide evidence that ghosts do/don't exist. In just the same way we can't prove God doesn't exist.

Particularly when both have long been said to exist on a plane beyond the physical realm.

We cannot verify that ghosts don't exist, therefore we cannot claim it as fact. We can apply opinion and we can state hypothesis regarding ghosts, but we can't state it as factual. This is what your posts seem to be doing.

Like I've said countless times previously, I dismiss the whole notion of ghosts and the like, but that doesn't make me correct. It simply means I've made what I consider and informed decision based on available evidence (which is nowt).

I find this reasonable.

 

[DaveC426913]

I've already said I dismiss the whole concept of ghosts in exactly the same way I dismiss a god(s).

Yes, you do. As do almost all of us here. But that is not the scientific method talking; that is an opinion talking.

Science does not say 'you did not experience a ghost', science says 'I have nothing to say about your personal experience'.

Put simply, I think they can all be debunked.

Certainly. But again, you did not arrive at that through any scientific method.

If you believe you have paranormal powers (or make any claims for that matter), prove it. If it can be proven to exist, under experimentally controlled conditions, I will amend my opinion. Until such a time, it stands.

Precisely. Again, science does not say 'there are no ghosts or no paranormal powers'. Science says 'until such time as there is objective evidence to be examined, I have nothing at all to say'.

Joking aside, there's nothing here to explain.

Yup. In other words: I have nothing to say.

Science does not claim that someone did not experience something. It cannot; it has no knowledge of what someone experienced. Science simply remains silent until such time as there is evidence to examine.


i.e there are many things about which science has nothing to say.

 

[JaredJames]

However, now you're contradicting yourself.

Agreed, I was trying to make a point which didn't come out well.

In this case, the claim is made regarding an object existing. We can prove it is non-existent.

Qualifier: Only if the object in question adheres to the principles by which it's existence is being tested, i.e. "we know what we are looking for." In your example, we'd be looking for a planet made of ordinary matter and existing in normal space-time.

Again agreed, however that is why I did the whole "definition of a planet". It has to fall within a very specific definition.

 

[JaredJames]

Dave, for the record I have never said science says ghosts do not exist.

I have said that I dismiss ghosts and the like.

I have said however, that a scientific fact requires evidence and as we don't have any, we cannot say one way or another whether or not ghosts exist.

 

[FlexGunship]

Science does not say 'you did not experience a ghost', science says 'I have nothing to say about your personal experience'.

In fact, all 5 of our senses are rooted in the physical realm. The claim that you "experienced a ghost" is a hard scientific claim. It presumes the existence of ghosts and more importantly it defines a ghost as something that can ineract with the physical universe. This is well within the realm of science.

Precisely. Again, science does not say 'there are no ghosts or no paranormal powers'. Scinece says 'until such time as there is obejctuive evidence to be examined, I have nothing at all to say'.

However, science does have something to say if you claim something about the existence of ghosts or their interaction with air, doors, hair, or laundry.

 

[JaredJames]

In fact,...

Agreed.

 

[DaveC426913]

In fact, all 5 of our senses are rooted in the physical realm. The claim that you "experienced a ghost" is a hard scientific claim. It presumes the existence of ghosts and more importantly it defines a ghost as something that can ineract with the physical universe. This is well within the realm of science.

Our 5 senses are but a small subset of our experiences. What goes on in our mind and thoughts is no one's purview but our own.

Demonstrate scientifically that I* did not have the experience I had.

However, science does have something to say if you claim something about the existence of ghosts or their interaction with air, doors, hair, or laundry.

Good thing I made no such claim...



* Devil's Advocate here... I do not claim to have had any ghostly experiences, "I" simply refers to the hapless victim.

 

[JaredJames]

Demonstrate scientifically that I did not have the experience I had.

Dave, you yourself keep saying that it is the claimants responsibility to prove what they claim. Not us to disprove it.

If you claim to have experienced a ghost, it is not up to us to disprove it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, you yourself keep saying that it is the claimants responsibility to prove what they claim. Not us to disprove it.

If you claim to have experienced a ghost, it is not up to us to disprove it.

That is all correct. Because this is a science forum.

But making claims and proving them with evidence is not the only form of communication about the world. There are ways of communicating that have nothing to do with the scientific method.

I could talk about my hurt feelings, my fear, my crisis of faith, my horrible nightmare, my vision of a ghostly figure of my dead grandmother, parallel universes, time before the Big Bang, the universe's First Cause.

Science does not have anything to say about these things.

None of these things are claims, none of them need objective evidence to discuss and none of them can be dismissed as not existing using any scientific method.

Science says "How hard it must be for you. Here, talk to this priest."

 

[squasher]

Hi everyone once again.
With regards to Jarednjames comments. The fact that you only think you are slightly above average intelligence is generally a good marker that you are actually much higher than you think. Intelligent people very often understate their own intelligence as they are more aware of what they do not know. IQ actually is a good indicator of intelligence but not of education or common sense.
People ask why did I not put in cameras. Why? How much would it have cost to get continual 24 hour recording equipment in several rooms? We never received any bad ‘happenings’ or anything that disturbed us so there was no need. It did not disturb us strangely enough. If we installed cameras and then started posting ‘proof’ on sites like this we would soon have been subject to TV and media coverage. Why would we want that?
As for the comments about us ‘forgetting’ that we moved from room to room or moved things ourselves – do you honestly think we never took that into consideration? Initially that is what we thought was happening but as the events continued we made certain that we could track our movements. For instance when something kept disappearing from one of the drawers and then appearing later on we even got to the stage that could be called childish. All three of us would empty the drawer onto a table and then saying aloud what each object was we would replace it until the drawer was full. After going into the next room for several minutes we returned and found the missing object in its correct position in the drawer. We did this several times.
The comment about us forgetting about folding and ironing the clothes – we DID NOT possesses an iron so how would the creases have disappeared?
When the doors opened and closed by themselves our cats and dog would watch and move their heads together as if something was crossing the room and then returning before the door closed. That is not proof because we have no idea what the animals may or may not have been looking at. For us it was the easy movement of a door that normally was difficult to open and close that was strange. What could a film have proved? With modern day equipment I am sure that any film we would have taken of clothes floating across a room being folded would have been greeted with claims that it was all fixed anyway. If a ‘ghost’ dressed in medieval clothes was seen turning the light on and off everyone would say it was someone dressed up. I do not know how setting up cameras would have helped to be perfectly honest. I do not have the knowledge of what sort of equipment was needed but I am sure cameras would have proved nothing at all to be honest.
With regards to the debunking by Randi. I must still reiterate my claim that he often does not show that someone is a fake. When he bends spoons he has long sleeves on and he shows them bending in a totally different way to how Geller does it. Is it magic? I don’t believe in magic but no one can show how he does it. I have seen him take a packet of seeds and pour a few on his hand. Gently stroking them the seeds sprout and small shoots appear. Perhaps this is scientifically easy to show and it just a normal effect of heat and sweat and gentle massage. My point is that Randi cannot reproduce this in the same way. To debunk something you MUST show how the so called ‘magician’ did it and not show another way of doing it.
I really do wish I had known some of you guys when I lived at my house as I would have been happy for you to come for a short visit to see what I and friends and sceptics experienced.
I have known many people who after hearing the stories of my house have told me their stories. As with you I cannot accept their ‘proof’ because I was not there and cannot verify that what they are saying is truthful or exaggerated or just made up so I remain sceptical of other stories but I can no longer say that they are wrong as some of you say because I KNOW what happened in my house. Even though we never actually saw the ‘ghost’ we did hear and smell it on many occasions. How could that be measured so that someone would believe it? I really don’t know.
If anyone wants to hear in more detail of the ‘happenings’ and how we eliminated all possible normal explanations then I will be happy to write to you. It will be quite a long mail though as these events happened over a number of years.
Many thanks for all of your comments.

 

[Opus_723]

All of that response and you finish with this line.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you disagree with my last line? Or with the rest of my post before that line?

 

[JaredJames]

Squasher,

A high IQ simply means you did well on an IQ test.

You're telling me that you had the first, genuine, recordable evidence of potential ghost happenings (items changing rooms, let alone the ironing and folding) and you didn't try to get it on film?

The monetary value of such a place alone would have been huge. Get some good footage and once the ghost hunters see it they'll be begging you to let them in. Let alone what it could mean for the science community.

This is another classic example of people making extraordinary claims and for some reason not wanting to do anything with it. It doesn't make sense.

"Yeah, so we got these ghosts rearranging our furniture, but we figure it's best to just let them be. No point wasting money on cameras to record them and get some science altering footage."

Heck, I bet there would have been loads of ghost hunters willing to stake the place out with cameras and various equipment simply on the off-chance something happened, without any cost to you at all.

Regarding your debunking of Geller, this is just non-sense. "To debunk something you MUST show how the so called ‘magician’ did it and not show another way of doing it.". What? The whole point of debunking it is coming up for an explanation of how it happens. It doesn't have to be the exact way they do it, but the conditions must match.

If I can make a ball disappear and claim it is paranormal powers I have that let me do it, and then you under identical circumstances, can reproduce the effect without the paranormal claim, it is debunked. The whole point of debunking is coming up with a "how it's done / happens" without the need for anything out of the ordinary.

I agree that if Randi had long sleeves and Geller didn't, that could be considered a different method. But it doesn't default to Geller being paranormal, it simply means he has a way of doing it we don't know yet. A good magician will have tricks no one else can perform, that's one of the best ways to make money in the business.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is another classic example of people making extraordinary claims and for some reason not wanting to do anything with it. It doesn't make sense.

Hear hear. Squasher, it will be a shame if you ever have a close encounter with an extraterrestrial. You will not even bother to take pictures of it, despite the fact that it would change the world as we know it.

But it doesn't default to Geller being paranormal, it simply means he has a way of doing it we don't know yet.

If even one magician were for real, he would allow himself to be tested under controlled circumstances that an external source sets, not circumstances he sets himself.

What sane legitimately-magical performer would try to hide the very thing that supposedly sets him apart as legit from every other false magician since the dawn of time?

 

[squasher]

Jarednjames

Despite the existence of numerous definitions of intelligence, there is only one common method to measure intelligence that is accepted worldwide viz. Intelligent Quotient (IQ) test. It is also called "Binet and Simon Test" that was published in 1905. This test has withstood the test of time even after a century. The IQ test continues to be the only universally accepted method of measuring human intelligence.

IQ tests do not measure the absolute intelligence of a person but they measure the person's intelligence in respect of the other person. The average IQ score is taken as 100. The higher than 100 score indicates that the person is more intelligent than the average person and less than 100 score indicates below average intelligence.

These IQ tests have become extremely popular over the years and almost universally applied for selection of the graduates and postgraduate students by the examinations like SAT or GRE. In most of the countries similar tests are conducted for college and university admissions. Even for selection of the candidates for jobs, often the IQ score is the quickest and most important criterion for selection.

The reason why IQ scores are such a universally accepted criterion for deciding the suitability of a person for a job or a higher course of study is not without any basis. There have been several studies which have confirmed that the people with high IQ score have much better chances of success in life. For example in an study conducted in 1925 by Lewis Terman followed the lives of the people who had IQ of 130 or more to find the relationship between the high intelligence and occupational success and social adjustment. The study established that on the average, the people with higher IQ have earned more degrees, attained higher occupational success and salaries, experienced better personal and social adjustments and found to be healthier at each age than the average adult.

So, yes, IQ tests do measure intelligence.

Why do young people assume that monetary value is the be all and end all of life?
At the time I was one of the top worlds squash players so why would I want loads of ghost hunters staking the place out with cameras etc upsetting my routine and scaring my animals? I did not want to become famous for having ‘ghosts’ around the house. I did not want loads of people and TV crews outside my house. It was hard enough trying to work my way up the world squash rankings.
The house is still there if anyone wishes to go and do the tests. It will no longer be my problem. I do agree that the scientific community would be fascinated by any results found and perhaps we should have done something in that area but we really did not want loads of people (which it would have been once word got out) invading our privacy. I hope you can understand that. It was bad enough on the pro. squash circuit which is not that well known as a sport but the privacy invasions there were enough for me. Once you have experienced it you do not want to escalate it.
Having said that, now that I am older I probably would do as you suggest but I honestly felt no need to do it at the time. I think I realize how frustrating it must be for you reading what I am saying. I feel the same when I get patients coming to me for health and nutrition advice and I hear what they want and do not want to do.
Bear in mind, also, that this was over 25 years ago and there was not the availability, unlike today, of internet sites to get 'ghost hunters' to check out the house. TV shows did not exist like the ones on ghosts nowadays. We suffered ridicule even from our friends until they came to the house. What would we have gone through from complete strangers?
Thanks again for the comments and the interest shown.
By the way DaveC426913. Your comment 'Hear hear. Squasher, it will be a shame if you ever have a close encounter with an extraterrestrial. You will not even bother to take pictures of it, despite the fact that it would change the world as we know it.'
Was that comment really necessary? Very scientific that!
When you get comments like that you wonder why I did not try to bring the media into my house.

 

[squasher]

I am not sure if I am allowed to post a link or not. If not then I do apologise in advance.
I just wanted to reply to DaveC426913 when he says about 'magicians' not being tested under controlled conditions. This is simply not true. If you look at this link it is very interesting.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page18.htm

 

[JaredJames]

You're just making excuses now. How do cameras interrupt your routine?

Besides, if the whole drawer thing is true, you could have done that on camera in a matter of hours. No big disruption.

You have to look at it like this. You had in your house, the worlds first genuine ghostly presence doing various things around your house and you didn't do anything with it.

Me seeing a kid ride past my house on a bike is something I do nothing about. Me noticing clothes going from being in a crumpled pile to neatly ironed and folded is something I want to show everyone. Something which could change the world as we know it. But for some reason, you didn't do this.

Are you honestly going to tell me that the above possibility was out weighed by your sports career?

"Why do young people assume that monetary value is the be all and end all of life? "

Did I say it was? I just pointed out you could make some money off it.

What I am saying is that an experience such as yours, if true and provable, would literally change science. Why would you not do anything with it?

This is no different to all of these people who claim to have built perpetual motion machines but for some unknown reason decide that they're not showing anyone else.

It is under controlled conditions that frauds are discovered. To date there has never been a person able to pass any test given to them under controlled conditions when it comes to claims regarding the paranormal or magic or whatever you want to call it.

 

[squasher]

Why do you say I had the world's first genuine ghostly presence? What makes you think that it was the first? What a weird thing to say. I am maybe the first on this site to say that they have experienced 'ghostly presence' first hand but I cannot believe I am the first in the world.
The drawer thing was true but why would I want to go out and buy expensive video equipment (it was 25 years ago) just to continually monitor the drawer? What sort of equipment would I have needed that could have captured continual footage of an event that happened occasionally, perhaps once every few months?
I did not want to make money off loads of people continually at my door, and you can guarantee that would happen if I had made my claims publically.
You may be unaware of the routine of a professional athlete but I can assure you that my sport came above everything else and the last thing I would have wanted was lots of people around my house at all hours. Find a top world sportsman and ask them the same question. I am not using that as an excuse but as a genuine reason.
As to your last sentence then just look at the link I posted. There are many tests that have been done under scientific observation that cannot prove deception by the 'magician'. I am not saying that no deception has happened but it has not been found. It is interesting that Randi when confronted with these tests by respected scientists then tried to discredit the scientists.

 

[JaredJames]

Why do you say I had the world's first genuine ghostly presence? What makes you think that it was the first? What a weird thing to say. I am maybe the first on this site to say that they have experienced 'ghostly presence' first hand but I cannot believe I am the first in the world.

As before, I dismiss anything to do with ghosts as rubbish. If what you are saying is true, it would, at least to me, be the first real ghost experience and something we need on tape. Something that would change the world.

The drawer thing was true but why would I want to go out and buy expensive video equipment (it was 25 years ago) just to continually monitor the drawer? What sort of equipment would I have needed that could have captured continual footage of an event that happened occasionally, perhaps once every few months?

I refer you to your previous post:

All three of us would empty the drawer onto a table and then saying aloud what each object was we would replace it until the drawer was full. After going into the next room for several minutes we returned and found the missing object in its correct position in the drawer. We did this several times.

This is 'on demand' haunting. Something any ghost hunter would give their left nut for.
So all you need to do is have a camera on hand to capture the event. You wouldn't have to buy it.
Record you emptying the draw, listing the items within, then leaving (the camera stays on the draw) and then return later and re-list the objects within to see if it's changed. Simple.

I did not want to make money off loads of people continually at my door, and you can guarantee that would happen if I had made my claims publically.

There are thousands of haunted locations out there, only a few get bothered continuously. If yours proved genuine, you should welcome people doing tests on the location. Think of what it would do for science.

You may be unaware of the routine of a professional athlete but I can assure you that my sport came above everything else and the last thing I would have wanted was lots of people around my house at all hours. Find a top world sportsman and ask them the same question. I am not using that as an excuse but as a genuine reason.

They'd also need something contained within their house with world changing potential. Asking if sport comes above all else when they don't have this aspect doesn't quite match up and certainly isn't a fair question.

As to your last sentence then just look at the link I posted. There are many tests that have been done under scientific observation that cannot prove deception by the 'magician'. I am not saying that no deception has happened but it has not been found. It is interesting that Randi when confronted with these tests by respected scientists then tried to discredit the scientists.

Once again, no person has ever passed a test to prove paranormal/magic/mystic ability whilst conducted under controlled conditions.

 

[squasher]

JarednJames
I don't think that you thought your previous post out.
So I go out and buy a video camera and film the entire event. Do you honestly believe just from the film that no one would say that I altered the film, or cut the part where I put the missing object back, or had someone dress up as a ghost (whatever that may look like) and put the object back? You are talking about scientific evidence and you think that would suffice?
You say that no person has ever passed a test to prove paranormal/magic/mystic ability whilst conducted under controlled conditions. I cannot agree with that but say what hope would I have with a very dubious home film when scientific controlled tests do not convince you? This is why to prove my 'ghost' would take a lot of people in my house for a long time which would definitely affect my life.
You really do not realize what would be required to even make a few people believe in 'ghosts' unless they actually experience the event themselves.
As for the sport coming first above all else. Yes it did. Totally and utterly. You must talk to a top sportsman to even come close to understanding this. It is as fundamental to a sportsman as your drive to get some proof that ghosts do or do not exist.

 

[squasher]

A further interesting link done under controlled conditions and unable to be reproduced by any known scientific means. Very interesting.
http://www.urigeller.com/books/geller-papers/g6.htm

 

[JaredJames]

So I go out and buy a video camera and film the entire event. Do you honestly believe just from the film that no one would say that I altered the film, or cut the part where I put the missing object back, or had someone dress up as a ghost (whatever that may look like) and put the object back? You are talking about scientific evidence and you think that would suffice?

It certainly wouldn't. But why would you get someone to dress up? If it's happening on it's own you just list the items in the drawer, leave, come back and it's there again. Easy.
Of course it will look dodgy. But if there are no obvious signs of foul play you can invite people to try it for themselves. If it's real, you could leave the house and let scientists do their thing.

You say that no person has ever passed a test to prove paranormal/magic/mystic ability whilst conducted under controlled conditions. I cannot agree with that but say what hope would I have with a very dubious home film when scientific controlled tests do not convince you? This is why to prove my 'ghost' would take a lot of people in my house for a long time which would definitely affect my life.
You really do not realize what would be required to even make a few people believe in 'ghosts' unless they actually experience the event themselves.

Your initial video evidence is simply to get things started. It isn't meant as the definitive proof.

As for the sport coming first above all else. Yes it did. Totally and utterly. You must talk to a top sportsman to even come close to understanding this. It is as fundamental to a sportsman as your drive to get some proof that ghosts do or do not exist.

I'm an engineer. If I had the ability to change the world with this real haunting, I would do it. Even athletes aren't dumb enough to pass this up.

Which of the following would you choose?
"I will attempt to make it in sports"
or
"I have something that will revolutionise science"

So what you're saying is you chose to ignore this world changing, science shattering evidence of the paranormal in favour of a sports career and because you don't want to disrupt your own life?

Well if that is true, that is the most shallow and self absorbed thing I've ever heard.

You can't use Uri Geller as a source for your claim regarding testing. The reason for this should be obvious.

 

[squasher]

You are incredibly naive to believe that my house would be considered as a world shattering event and that it would revolutionise science. wow!
As you say my initial video would get things started. Starting what? Ridicule or serious investigation? Whatever it would start would then totally turn our lives upside down.
As for you making a comment about what a world class sportsman would or would not do then in this case I can definitely say that you really do not understand the workings of a driven athlete. Of course top sportsmen are self absorbed. That is part of the reason they get where they are.
As an engineer I bet I can say that you are not well known even in your own city/state let alone internationally. Until you get that situation you really are not qualified to express what top athletes can and can not feel. I do not mean that statement as an insult, so please do not take it as one, but it is made through experience of talking to people who are and are not public figures.
Instead of 'shallow and self absorbed' please put 'dedicated'.

Your last line just shows how closed you are to anything that you disagree with. Read the articles please. You can ignore the name Uri Geller but just read how the tests were made, who made them, how they were examined afterwards, and how they could not be reproduced even by trying to do it without any type of concealment or hidden tricks. They could not reproduce it using scientific methods. What it shows is that there are things that CANNOT be explained by science (at present) or cannot be debunked. Until it can be reproduced or explained then it must remain a possible paranormal event.
So going back to your original points. If a controlled scientific experiment shows something that cannot be explained in any way whatsoever and does not become a world shattering scientific discovery then why would my house suddenly become something that would revolutionise science? Randi would just say the scientists who came to my house were tricked by my sleight of hand and magical know how or he would try to discredit the observers by saying they only saw what they wanted to see. I am sure he would not travel to examine the house himself. So where would that leave me? An object of ridicule and jokes and my squash career probably destroyed because of the stress it all caused. Just sit back and think a little of what would happen.
If I found the cure for all diseases that would be a different thing. But do you really think my house would revolutionise science? I don't think so.
Anway, I am not as young as you and as it has gone past midnight here I am off to bed.
I really would like to continue this with you if you wish but perhaps it would be better via messages to each other as I think most other people may be getting a bit fed up of the topic. Maybe not though.
Thanks once more for the debate. Have a great evening wherever you are.

 

[FlexGunship]

Okay, I'm on my phone, so forgive the formatting.

1) Squasher: making a claim and not following up on it is a common folly of people who knowingly lie about paranormal claims. I'm NOT accusing you of lying, and sorry for being so blunt. But that is why we are all so skeptical.

I will make you a deal. If you are willing to demonstrate these events for me in person or by live teleconference, then I will pay you for your time. In return, I would like sole control over the revenue generated but will split it 20/80 for you/me. Your name will not appear on the Nobel prize. If you cannot make good on you claims, you only owe air fare and lodging. Deal?

2) Dave, we seem to be missing each other's points. My point is that activing in the brain from real or imagined events are within the purview of science. The brain might be complex, but it is not magical. The nature of personal experience is knowable if not directly relatable.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why do you say I had the world's first genuine ghostly presence? What makes you think that it was the first?

Because none of the rest of them have panned out. Yours would be the first.

So I go out and buy a video camera and film the entire event. Do you honestly believe just from the film that no one would say that I altered the film, or cut the part where I put the missing object back, or had someone dress up as a ghost (whatever that may look like) and put the object back? You are talking about scientific evidence and you think that would suffice?

Because since your is repeatable and consistent and not a hoax, professional crews would follow up, see it as genuine, and make world headlines.


Instead, what you are doing by not bothering is demonstrating that you know as well as we do that, when it comes down to it, this is just like every other ghost story since the dawn of time.