|
Post by BHPI Mark on Nov 17, 2009 11:28:26 GMT -6
Some of you on this site know that I tend to be a little more skeptical about reported paranormal activity. This is not to say I don’t think there are unexplainable phenomena that occur. I have seen some pretty compelling evidence that was properly collected and an attempt was made to debunk (explain) the occurrence. I have also witnessed unknown phenomena that leave me scratching my head. I have never used these personal experiences as hard evidence. On occasions, these experiences help to validate what the homeowner has experienced, so they do not feel they are going crazy.
I know this concept of being a skeptic and a believer at the same time is contrary to conventional thought. But, let’s face it; this is an unconventional field of study. Take for example, there are many of you on this site that condone and actually encourage others to use unconventional means to solve their paranormal problems. I for one do not agree that using Ouija boards, salt, crystals, psychics, dowsing rods, and the many other practices that are paranormal in nature to prove or disprove paranormal activity. I might not agree with your methods and will even call on you at times to prove your statements or methods. This does not mean I am trying to anger you I am simply trying to get you to think critically and not take on face value the truth of a claim of activity or action. Remember, not every bump in the night is paranormal in nature.
I have asked some on this site to tell me what evidence they have that some of these paranormal methods actually work. So far, no one has been able to present any significant evidence for his or her claims. The most important thing in this field of study is being able to collect evidence, review it, and present it. This sounds simple but it is not. Evidence must be collected properly, reviewed properly (critically reviewed), and it must be relevant. Once my group finds evidence that looks compelling, we go back and look for reasonable explanations for it. This means we look for ways to debunk this evidence, because I can assure you there are people out there that will go over your evidence with a fine-toothed comb, and expect you to prove your findings. This is simply what I am asking from those of you on this site that make claims. If I make a claim of fact, I expect to be called on it as well.
Many on this site will not agree with me, that is fine and it would be a dull world if we did agree on everything. I believe intelligent discourse, on any subject, is the cornerstone of understanding. The more we intelligently discuss the paranormal, the closer we will come to finding answers.
Mark Investigator/Researcher Black Hills Paranormal Investigations
|
|
|
Post by ashley! on Nov 19, 2009 7:53:50 GMT -6
oh we totally understand that u are a skeptic and thats all good. its good to have one in the group. its just that ive been through some things and i have tried the scientific methods and sometimes they dont work very well and when i used the paranormal methods they have helped a lot. so it just dependson the paranormal event that u are dealing with.
|
|
|
Post by Carrie on Nov 19, 2009 20:44:11 GMT -6
don't you get annoyed by being a skeptic all the time? like seeing everything through a skeptics eye and through te paranormal view at the same time? btw i totally know that your not trying to get anybody pissed.
|
|
|
Post by BHPI Mark on Nov 20, 2009 9:20:27 GMT -6
First of all ashley, when I talk about using a scientific method, I am talking about finding evidence of paranormal activity and documenting it. I am trying to use scientific means to prove or disprove paranormal activity. When you document activity using scientific means people take notice and can't dismiss your evidence. How can you prove a ouija board works? Just because the little white thing moves? This is not evidence...you can not prove what you say, so therefore any evidence of anything paranormal is worthless. This is not just for ouija boards, your feelings or what you think are bunched in there as well. Properly collected evidence using scientific means will be what makes a difference in this field...not those who run around in cemeteries thinking they see something or feel something.
Carrie, I hate saying I get annoyed...it is more frustrated than anything. I am trying to get folks to start looking at this through critical eyes. Don't take anything anyone tells you at face value without checking it out for yourself and making your own determination. But, don't make those determinations on feelings or crystals or any of that other stuff. Do it with critical thinking.
I'm going to be gone for the next week an want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Hope you all get plenty of turkey and pie!!! Mark
|
|
|
Post by Carrie on Nov 20, 2009 16:59:46 GMT -6
lol unclebuck the white thing is actually called the pointer.
haha yea i meant frustrated but i couldn't think of the word. and i never used crystals of any of that stuff and i've just used an ouija board but it was just to see if it worked and i wasn't using it for a "mission" or anything.
btw have a safe and fun thanksgiving!!
carrie
|
|
|
Post by ashley! on Nov 20, 2009 19:32:02 GMT -6
ok i noe what scientific methods u are talking bout and im not saying anything about them. and u have ur beliefs and i have mine. so im not trying to diss urs. and have a safe and awesome thanksgiving. =]
|
|
|
Post by darkone on Nov 21, 2009 21:45:42 GMT -6
unfortunately critical, scientific, and even logical reasoning or methods are used by most of the people in this forum lately.. its turned into a science-fiction chat room for the most part.... i love this message board but the last year has been ridiculous...
|
|
|
Post by Carrie on Nov 24, 2009 2:53:28 GMT -6
Uh-huh yea we don't need to hear negativity and btw it hasn't. To tell u the truth it was pretty boring to begin with. No one ever really got on and I don't even remeber u being on here.
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by greg on Dec 24, 2009 17:44:25 GMT -6
An event made the news a few days ago. Researchers working in a lab deep in the Soudan mine in Minnesota detected a few events that might have been dark matter particles. Or maybe not. Right now they're not making any grander claim than "maybe", and a more sensitive detector is being built that might verify it.
There is absolutely no conflict with being skeptical about something you investigate! It's built in to science. A research team might announce a new result, and other teams say "Oh, really? We're going to have to check that ourselves before we believe you." Sometimes the team that announced the result takes another look at their work and publishes a retraction! If you're not your own harshest critic, someone else will step in to the job. It's expected, it's essential, and it's generally taken in good humor. Heck, continued funding, a continuing career, even publication in a peer-reviewed journal, depends on work that includes not making claims that your evidence won't support.
Any peek at political discussions in newspapers or talk radio shows the same thing. If a liberal says grass is green, then a conservative will start arguing that sometimes it's brown. This is not always so good humored, but it is also expected, and essential to the democratic process.
If someone is upset about skepticism concerning paranormal events, then that is a person whose mind is so open that his brain has fallen out. The paranormal doesn't get a free pass when it comes to skepticism, although the whole process of critical inquiry can seem foreign to some of the fans. It can seem sometimes that there's no such thing as a wrong answer. But as the late Senator Moynihan has been quoted, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
So go ahead, be skeptical. I promise I won't hate you for it.
|
|
|
Post by BHPI Mark on Dec 30, 2009 10:28:07 GMT -6
An event made the news a few days ago. Researchers working in a lab deep in the Soudan mine in Minnesota detected a few events that might have been dark matter particles. Or maybe not. Right now they're not making any grander claim than "maybe", and a more sensitive detector is being built that might verify it. There is absolutely no conflict with being skeptical about something you investigate! It's built in to science. A research team might announce a new result, and other teams say "Oh, really? We're going to have to check that ourselves before we believe you." Sometimes the team that announced the result takes another look at their work and publishes a retraction! If you're not your own harshest critic, someone else will step in to the job. It's expected, it's essential, and it's generally taken in good humor. Heck, continued funding, a continuing career, even publication in a peer-reviewed journal, depends on work that includes not making claims that your evidence won't support. Any peek at political discussions in newspapers or talk radio shows the same thing. If a liberal says grass is green, then a conservative will start arguing that sometimes it's brown. This is not always so good humored, but it is also expected, and essential to the democratic process. If someone is upset about skepticism concerning paranormal events, then that is a person whose mind is so open that his brain has fallen out. The paranormal doesn't get a free pass when it comes to skepticism, although the whole process of critical inquiry can seem foreign to some of the fans. It can seem sometimes that there's no such thing as a wrong answer. But as the late Senator Moynihan has been quoted, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. So go ahead, be skeptical. I promise I won't hate you for it. Thank you Greg...and also a thanks to Darkone.
|
|
|
Post by fbnstephen on Dec 30, 2009 14:18:13 GMT -6
I think the issue here is that there is a common belief that this is an all-or-nothing subject. Critical thinking is just thrown out the window because it clashes with whichever dogmatic paranormal belief system is held, both sides have a number who fall into this category. I applaud anyone who is a critical thinking believer or a critical thinking skeptic because both of these are truly open-minded.
|
|
|
Post by BHPI Mark on Jan 2, 2010 9:25:25 GMT -6
I think the issue here is that there is a common belief that this is an all-or-nothing subject. Critical thinking is just thrown out the window because it clashes with whichever dogmatic paranormal belief system is held, both sides have a number who fall into this category. I applaud anyone who is a critical thinking believer or a critical thinking skeptic because both of these are truly open-minded. I agree with you 100% with your assessment. I simply ask that if there is a claim made about the paranormal, provide your evidence. Personal experiences or what someone else told you is not evidence. It is surely eye opening to the person who experiences it, but there should be something, such as evidence, to back your claim. You can believe in the paranormal, but you must be open-minded enough to accept the possibility that not everything that goes bump in the night is paranormal. I have experienced activity that has me scratching my head and I have even captured some evidence that points to possible paranormal activity. But before I jump to any conclusions, I make every attempt to find a logical explanation for that evidence. Lacking that, I place the evidence out there for peer review to get honest feedback. Anyone who is willing to accept at face value any claim without the evidence to back it up does no good to this field. Thanks for your input, it is much appreciated. Oh, and Happy New Year everyone! Mark
|
|
greg
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by greg on Jan 3, 2010 5:20:24 GMT -6
I wouldn't discount personal experience out of hand. For instance, if someone punched me in the gut, that would be a personal experience, and I would take it as certain evidence that I had encountered someone. There might not be a bruise to photograph and display, and a bruise might have been made by something else, but a witness account is valid evidence. To say that the person was angry with me might be an interpretation that goes beyond the evidence.
Some scientists derisively dismiss anecdotal evidence, but "anecdotal" often means nothing more than it wasn't seen by the right person. But rocks were reported falling from the sky before a natural philosopher found one. It's pretty much the same story for ball lightning. In Africa, whites dismissed tales of a half zebra-half wildebeast until an okapi was killed by a white man and sent to England. Stories indicating intelligence and emotion in animals were dismissed rather derisively by certain segments, but it's now an accelerating field of study.
When you're looking at the paranormal, anecdotes might be all you can get. And reproducing it could be as difficult as getting your cat to do that amazing thing she did earlier. You have to consider what were the observed facts versus what is interpretation of the facts, and the reliability of the witness to observe and report those facts, and maybe you can find something in a pattern of reports by independent witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by fbnstephen on Jan 3, 2010 9:44:07 GMT -6
I don't think we are really talking about dismissing the experience of a witness - in fact, the entire reason that I began to investigate paranormal phenomena is because of my experience. I cannot call my experience evidence - but I can potentially use that experience to motivate me to collect actual evidence. When interviewing a 'client' before an investigation, we take their experiences into account when conducting the investigation - BUT we also look very seriously at the possibility that they did not see what they thought they saw and spend a large portion of our time attempting to discover alternate explanations.
|
|
|
Post by BHPI Mark on Jan 3, 2010 10:56:04 GMT -6
I would agree with you both; personal experiences are the reason we investigate claims in people's homes and businesses, and a personal experience was the catalyst that got me in this field as well. Granted, some experiences are compelling and even witness statements that back up a claim are hard to ignore, but you have to understand that the person claiming an experience can misinterpret the experience and eyewitness testimonies are notoriously wrong. Please bear with me as I give you an example.
I was a police officer for 30 years and am now retired. During that time I worked in several divisions including homicide, I took thousands of victim, witness, and yes even suspect statements. I learned that a lot of the times eyewitness statements were off from the evidence collected. The witness was not lying, they only misinterpreted what they saw. Thank God for the evidence that does not lie. There is one caveat, the evidence must have been properly collected, analyzed, and presented to the court. Sure the other side would do what they could to discount your evidence, but if you did your job properly, the evidence and case would hold up. Basically, the defense is there to ensure your "ducks" are in a row. If not you are going to pay dearly for it with evidence being thrown out or God forbid the suspect going free.
It is no different in this field, except the outcome does not release a demented killer back into society. But the whole point is the fact that details can become misinterpreted and proper evidence collection and review are what matters. I could no more use my gut feeling a person was guilty of a crime in a court of law, than use my gut feeling a home or business is haunted without evidence to back up that claim.
Personal experiences backed up by good evidence is golden. Personal experiences backed up by a witness is not so good. I agree personal experiences are a starting point to an investigation and pushes you to find the evidence. I also have been in places where numerous people have claimed the same experiences without knowing what others have experienced. Interesting yes, but not enough for me to stake my reputation and the reputation of my team on claiming a haunting without good evidence to back the claims.
|
|