Where is the logic?
Posted 16 July 2003 - 07:12 AM
Some of the things I have witnessed over 11 years suggests to me that there is something , that exists outside of our graps of understanding. What it is remains uncertain. Since no scientific evidence has been presented as to the nature of these happenings, anything is possible.
P.S. I am certain that personal belief plays a key roll in our understanding of such phenomenon.
Posted 19 July 2003 - 08:39 PM
There are two, traditionally studied tracks for psychology: as an art and as a science. Generally, it's considered a social science much like economics, political science, education, etc. Some people do call it a pseudoscience and so be it, if they choose. I guess they'll have to explain away the genetic research just done linking allele shapes to inclination towards depression....
PARApsychology is considered by some to be a pseudoscience but what I'm saying is that the college accreditation board, the ones that say the degree you earn from a particular university is a degree to go on for graduate work or, in some cases, certain jobs, has come from a valid or challenging curriculum has accredited certain scientific parapsychology programs. That's what I'm saying.
Parapsychology experiments can be done under controlled environments.
Posted 23 March 2004 - 11:10 AM
Perception is indeed a huge part of the formula but without logic the soup we serve is nothing more than hot water.
but logic has a problem here, because logic again is linked back to the perception! How else does logic applies? What we may actually need is to BREAK the mould and then explain what is!
Posted 23 March 2004 - 03:43 PM
Posted 23 March 2004 - 05:54 PM
If you film a mist and people say "oh that's just cig smoke". Wouldn't the people that were there know if they were smoking or never smelled or saw it. Granted I am not speaking to the hoaxers out there just honest ghost hunters like myself and our group.
I think that if logic is going to be exercised, it needs to be exercised on both sides of the fence. ;D
Posted 24 March 2004 - 05:58 AM
Posted 25 March 2004 - 05:09 AM
My only point is that usually you see logic applied to the argument that there is no such thing as ghosts and I feel it has an equal place on the there are ghost argument's side. ;D
Posted 25 March 2004 - 05:15 AM
Posted 25 March 2004 - 05:19 AM
Posted 25 March 2004 - 05:27 AM
Ummmmm....like I referred to in my earlier post. It is very logical that the object filmed on the stage would be of paranormal origin since six of us walked through that area for over 2 hours and never once noticed a large gold colored object. It can also be "logically" called paranormal since the camcorder and no other camera except mine caught the image and only in one pic.
I think that throughout an investigation, logic plays an important part in keeping and throwing out components of that investigation. ;D
Posted 25 March 2004 - 06:00 AM
Oh, exactly. It's one of those failings of a skeptic (not my kind of skeptic though, the stereotypical skeptic). They do not even believe the witnesses that were at the investigation. They still feel what they "saw" or "experienced" was so rational, that how could you possibly call it paranormal. They don't give credibility to an investigator in 9 times out of 10. Afterall, the investigator is a "whacko" for investigating paranormal things (or investigating rational explanations aas if they were paranormal) in the first place. To a stereotypical skeptic-debunker, that right there means investigators don't deserve credence. At least that's how I see it.
But why would all of these investigators go through all of this hard work, time consuming research and spend the kind of money they do on instruments based on SCIENCE, by the way, and try to use them to come up with a scientific trail to follow IF they are just giving momentum to a hoax? My self being a skeptic, I still notice that there way too much "evidence" (reports, honest people coming to groups looking for help with VERY unexplainable events) to ignore it and call it "the wind".
The word paranormal has been tainted. By both the skeptical community, which rebukes it, shuns it and mocks it. And also very possibly by the very investigators that try to uphold it, prove it and study it. I still use the word paranormal, as I still have a strong impression that there ARE things paranormal. What that is down to the detail, I don't know yet. I will be working on finding out though!
You got it. That logic can help filter the nonsense. Weed out the parts that don't add up. (LOL! then again, to a skeptical-debunker, that would mean since your golden thinger didn't add up with logical explanations, you'd have to throw out the idea and the evidence that it ever happened LOL!)
Posted 25 March 2004 - 03:46 PM
I come from the skeptic, scientific community and through a research project i was working on,had some experiences of my own, now a year later, while still somewhat skeptical i am open to the possibility of paranormal phenomemnon. Speaking as someone who used to sit around making fun of paranormal investigators, (one of my advisors is published very ofetn in "The Skeptical Inquirer" he heplped me design my research study linked above BTW)I can totally agree that it is the investigators methodology and seeming fanatical acceptance of anything and everything as paranormal, that casts a pall on this field.
Skeptics while seemingly harsh at times, are necessary, as are logic, deductive and inductive reasoning and the scientific method. People in this field get so caught up in trying to get that great pic or that cool evp that they forget that ANY of these things can be explained away easily.
People also very much confuse science and technology. Tons and tons of gadgets dont equal science...science is about the method we use to seek answers and many, many great scientific discoveries have been made using nothing more than a pencil and a piece of paper.....
Posted 25 March 2004 - 09:46 PM
Posted 26 March 2004 - 05:52 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users