
40 Years of study Disproves Ghosts
#2
Posted 28 August 2010 - 04:20 AM
#3
Posted 28 August 2010 - 04:05 PM
#4
Posted 29 August 2010 - 01:30 AM
Thanks for sharing, Jim!
#5
Posted 29 August 2010 - 10:54 PM
#6
Posted 14 September 2010 - 01:03 PM
#7
Posted 14 September 2010 - 08:32 PM
What this yet once again illustrates is that cynics masquerading as 'skeptics' will do anything, say anything, distort anything if the resulting generality enables them to claim a 'victory' without much concern for truth or the countless hours of diligent and careful research which they, in the main, cannot explain and possess little knowledge.
I find it also interesting that most of us who have been working in psi research at the laboratory level have been engaged likewise for 40+ years. We have some plausible working models and frameworks, what do the cynics have? Nothing.
#8
Posted 15 September 2010 - 12:41 AM
We have some plausible working models and frameworks, ....
Interesting.....
Tell us more???
#9
Posted 15 September 2010 - 08:33 AM
Of course what is most interesting is that what is quoted only refutes the 'low hanging fruit'. It does nothing to address the psi research which demonstrates some abilities consistent with the claims. And it does not address the limitations in the Goldsmith's studies which are highly contrived in nature.
What this yet once again illustrates is that cynics masquerading as 'skeptics' will do anything, say anything, distort anything if the resulting generality enables them to claim a 'victory' without much concern for truth or the countless hours of diligent and careful research which they, in the main, cannot explain and possess little knowledge.
I find it also interesting that most of us who have been working in psi research at the laboratory level have been engaged likewise for 40+ years. We have some plausible working models and frameworks, what do the cynics have? Nothing.
Love to hear what these plausible theories are. BTW. Look up the word cynic just to make sure you aren't applying a new meaning to the word.
#10
Posted 17 September 2010 - 08:09 AM
#11
Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:11 PM
I haven't yet seen any research in the paranormal area that inevitably requires the assumption of a paranormal explanation, so I am not surprised by this article and tend to agree. However, I would like to point out that it is (literally, technically) impossible to prove the non-existence of something. Only positive claims can be validated in research. That's why the burden of proof always rests with those claiming there are paranormal forces at work.
Steven, I think we have found someting that we can finally agree on.
#12
Posted 05 October 2010 - 03:26 PM
I've long accepted that many ghost encounters are just psychological. But there are many things beyond that convenient explanation. When multiple people experience the same ghost, you can't dismiss it as a result of some obscure psychological phenomenon.40 years of research proves ghosts don't exist.
Click here for the story
#13
Posted 23 October 2010 - 04:05 AM
40 years of research proves ghosts don't exist.
Is it possible to prove that something doesn't exist? I thought that's why the burden of proof was on us (as it should be).
#14
Posted 23 October 2010 - 09:12 AM
40 years of research proves ghosts don't exist.
Is it possible to prove that something doesn't exist? I thought that's why the burden of proof was on us (as it should be).
I originally posted this some time ago and was curious about the feedback it might generate. Of course I agree that it is always impossible to prove a negative, however the point here is that there are other explanations besides the old "Ghosts are spirits of dead people" theory. (Which by the way is also unproven!)
We as investigators must keep an open mind to ALL possibilities until such time as a definitive conclusion is reached. The reasons cited in the article may account for some, but definitely not ALL ghost reports. And even those not accounted for by mundane reasons cannot be grouped in as spirits of the dead. That is where a thorough examination of the evidence is crucial.
#15
Posted 23 October 2010 - 11:36 AM

0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users