Edinburgh's ghost mystery solved :-)

[Chimpy]

From today's London Times:
City is haunted by dry spirits, says ghostbuster
By A Scotland Correspondent



A SCIENTIFIC ghost hunt in Edinburgh has yielded reports of apparitions, phantom footsteps, unexplained cold spots and unseen hands, it is revealed today.
Richard Wiseman, who led the study of an underground network of streets beneath the city’s Royal Mile, admitted: “Something quite odd was going on.�



But he does not believe that any of the experiences — which affected most of 200 volunteers — were paranormal. He is convinced that hauntings are caused by a combination of environmental and psychological factors.

The investigation focused on Mary King’s Close — a warren of streets sealed off from the outside world more than 200 years ago. Today the site is maze of dark narrow alleys and the remains of houses.

Mary King’s Close became entombed when Edinburgh’s Royal Exchange — now the City Chambers — was built in 1753. The top floors of the houses were demolished and the lower floors incorporated into the new foundations.

The rooms of many houses still exist, and according to some reports, so do a number of their former residents.

Professor Wisemen sent groups of volunteers to four locations without telling them that only two had a strong reputation for being haunted. The aim was to compare reports from the different sites.

About 70 per cent of those visiting the haunted locations reported unusual phenomena. In contrast, only 48 per cent of people exploring the locations not reputed to be haunted had spooky experiences.

At the most haunted site, where a sinister figure in black has been seen repeatedly, something strange happened to more than 80 per cent of the volunteers.

“There was a massive difference between the locations,� said Professor Wiseman, from the University of Hertfordshire. “Sometimes people just felt very cold, but there were some quite extreme experiences — feelings of being watched, being touched and having clothing pulled, apparitions of people and animals, and footsteps. I was really surprised at the extent of the experiences.�

Probably the strangest report was from a volunteer who complained about being stared at by a member of Professor Wiseman’s team from the end of a corridor. No one was there.

Experiments showed that the two “haunted� locations were significantly less humid than the other sites. This can generate a feeling of coldness, Professor Wiseman said.

There was also evidence of “infrasound� — low frequency sound waves that are too deep for the human ear to pick up, but are known to produce feelings of unease. In the most haunted site there was a continuous infrasound rumble, possibly caused by overhead traffic.

A psychological test found that people rated photographs of the haunted locations as significantly more “ghostly� than those of the other sites. This suggested subtle visual features, such as shape, lighting, or the presence of doorways, may be eliciting a sense of fear.

Professor Wiseman said: “It could be that the ghosts were down there, but I think the explanation is primarily psychological.� He said the findings might shed light on “sick building� syndrome — unexplained feelings of uneasiness or sickness associated with certain buildings.

The results will be submitted to the British Journal of Psychology.

[Garrette]

I'm glad Wiseman has released his findings, particularly since they seem to go against his expectations.

Based solely on the article, though, it seems premature for him to dismiss the phenomena as non-paranormal. Given what appears to be a significant difference between experiences at the "haunted" and "control" locations, I think he needs to do more before pooh-poohing what others say.

The alternative explanations seem plausible, but if they are legit, then further experiments incorporating them need to be done.

Or am I way off?

[Chimpy]

If you're asking me if there's such a thing as a ghost you're asking the wrong person. Ghosts are about as real as elves, pixies and gremlins. In other words, there is no such thing as a ghost.

[Garrette]

I wasn't really asking anything. I don't believe ghosts exist, either.

However, Wiseman performed an experiment meant to disprove hauntings at those rooms in Edinburgh. It failed to do that. If anything, by itself it strengthened the idea that the hauntings are real.

To demonstrate otherwise he needs to do more than add post hoc hypotheses.

[dann]

Why do you think that Wiseman was trying to disprove anything? He sent groups of people to different locations, some of them with a reputation of being haunted, others 'neutral'. He observes what comes out of this experiment, and - maybe to his surprise - the 'haunted' places appear to be more haunted than the neutral ones, 70 % versus 48 %. Pretty impressive, actually, that almost fifty per cent of all buildings seem to be 'haunted' when you make this kind of test, and I bet that the superstitious won't stress this piece of empirical 'fact'.
So far he's only managed to isolate a phenomenon that needs an explanation: a correlation between alleged haunted houses and the feeling of being haunted. That in itself doesn't strengthen anything.

You are right when you say that, "To demonstrate otherwise he needs to do more than add post hoc hypotheses." And he is looking into that. So far he didn't catch a single ghost, but he has other hypotheses that just might (that's the point of a hypothesis) explain why people have the sensations they have in these places. Now he continues his research to find the truth.

[Garrette]

Points taken, dann. I'll retract that he was trying to disprove anything.

I suppose I based my reaction at least partly on the title of the thread.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Garrette
I suppose I based my reaction at least partly on the title of the thread.

I apologize for that, I was merely sticking my tongue firmly in my cheek :-) (since there were never any ghosts to start with...)

[pyewhackett]

I find 'apparition sightings' to be the most intriguing of all 'phenomena'. The feelings of 'inexplicable fear' or of being watched or touched are usually readily explained. I would imagine that the volunteers in this study all knew something of the history or the reputation of the premises, with many 'expecting' something to happen.

Over the years I've occasionally thought I've seen an apparition that turns out to be lighting, natural or artifical, or to be something silly like a tree or an animal. How can we test a sighting?

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Garrette
Based solely on the article, though, it seems premature for him to dismiss the phenomena as non-paranormal. Given what appears to be a significant difference between experiences at the "haunted" and "control" locations, I think he needs to do more before pooh-poohing what others say.

I've yet to see any positive evidence for the paranormal. No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death.

[Garrette]

I agree, Chimpy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dann
[B]Why do you think that Wiseman was trying to disprove anything? He sent groups of people to different locations, some of them with a reputation of being haunted, others 'neutral'. He observes what comes out of this experiment, and - maybe to his surprise - the 'haunted' places appear to be more haunted than the neutral ones, 70 % versus 48 %. Pretty impressive, actually, that almost fifty per cent of all buildings seem to be 'haunted' when you make this kind of test,



Hang on a sec, hang on a sec, hang on a sec. Groups of volunteers were sent to 4 locations with 2 allegedly being haunted. But I bet you they knew beforehand (i.e they were told by Wiseman) that some of these locations were allegedly haunted. So your conclusion that people find almost 50% of all buildings haunted is utterly absurd.

Do your own experiment. Try sending people to a building, but don't mention that it might be haunted. Ask them if they felt it was haunted afterwards (or better still just ask them if they felt anything at all and allow them to elaborate). Now try sending people to a building but with the prior suggestion that it is (or might be) allegedly haunted, then ask the same questions afterwards. You would be remarkably naive to imagine that the results will be the same!

And on this note the experiment could have been conducted better. The same people should have visited all 4 locations and told beforehand that 2 of them were haunted. I bet if they were asked to pick out the haunted locations the figures would be much more impressive.



and I bet that the superstitious won't stress this piece of empirical 'fact'.



Because it's not relevant for the reasons I've expressed above.


So far he's only managed to isolate a phenomenon that needs an explanation: a correlation between alleged haunted houses and the feeling of being haunted. That in itself doesn't strengthen anything.


No, not just a feeling. There have been reports of apparitions, phantom footsteps, unexplained cold spots and unseen hands. Don't ignore facts which are inconvenient to your skeptical hypothesis.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chimpy
I've yet to see any positive evidence for the paranormal. No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death.

And certainly no-one has demonstrated that there isn't.

[Interesting Ian]

BTW, just to make it clear. Even if it were to be found that some locations are genuinely haunted (by which I mean there is some anomalous phenomena taking place), I don't think this, in and of itself, would give any evidence for an afterlife. No more than say something like telepathy.

[pmckean]

I've been down to the vaults used for these experiments, on one of Edinburgh's numerous Ghost tours. I must say that they're quite cosy after the biting Autumn wind.

Despite the host's attempts to scare us all, even my notoriously superstitious girlfriend and her nervous 10 year-old son couldn't raise a hackle between them.

Remove the dozens of tourists, brights lights and comfy warmth and I'm pretty sure even the hardened sceptic's imagination would run riot, though.

The infrasound idea has been noted and proven in there before, with a direct correlation between the prevalence of this entirely normal (as opposed to paranormal) phenomena and the locations where anomalous activity was recorded.

Case closed, I think.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by pmckean
I've been down to the vaults used for these experiments, on one of Edinburgh's numerous Ghost tours. I must say that they're quite cosy after the biting Autumn wind.

Here's something purely anecdotal :-) My baby bro is studying in Edinburgh. Undergrads get bored easily and so him and three friends went on a ghost tour, just for laughs. The report back was that it's a hilarious experience and nothing spooky anywhere. For my part, I don't mind being in big, damp places on my own, mostly because as an archaeologist I've spent plenty of time in tombs and catacombs, running around blissfully on my own. Plus I'm now in the UK and on my way home I always pass by a quaint British graveyard. Hell actually I pass by more than one, one is just on the entrance path to Marks and Spencer :-) I do enjoy sauntering around British graveyards as I find the inscriptions really interesting. No ghostly activity there either. Never encountered ghosts in libraries either, despite various accounts of lost, dead students or bitter, failed scientists haunting these hallowed places.

Maybe I scare them ghosts?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by pmckean


The infrasound idea has been noted and proven in there before, with a direct correlation between the prevalence of this entirely normal (as opposed to paranormal) phenomena and the locations where anomalous activity was recorded.

Case closed, I think.

[list=a]
How do you know that ghosts don't cause the infrasound rather than vice versa?
How does infrasound explain people seeing apparitions, ghostly hands etc?
How do you know it's a direct correlation rather than indirect correlation between the sound and the allegedly paranormal phenomena?
[/list=a]

Case closed? I think not. Your skeptics beliefs are blinding you to alternative possibilities.

[Open Mind]

Originally posted by Chimpy
I've yet to see any positive evidence for the paranormal. No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death.

What do you mean by 'no one has yet demonstrated' ..... are you psychic to know this? :) Perhaps you mean 'No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death to me (i.e. Chimpy) ' :)

Why can't skeptics just say 'I don't know... the claims don't convince me, so I doubt it'

[Chimpy]

Short answer so I can go back to my Neolithic...
There was some German dude whose name escapes me at midnight who tried to find a soul and by extension show life after death. Failed.

If you have any citations from peer reviewed journals showing that there is life after death, please pass them along. Until then I stand by what I said. And your argument borders on a logical fallacy. No one has demonstrated an atom to me, but there is plenty of scientific literature to back it up.

Now, back to my work.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chimpy
Short answer so I can go back to my Neolithic...
There was some German dude whose name escapes me at midnight who tried to find a soul and by extension show life after death. Failed.


He failed??! :eek: Must prove the non-existence of the soul then!



If you have any citations from peer reviewed journals showing that there is life after death, please pass them along.



Well, let's start with the evidence from reincarnation shall we? Read the following then get back to me:

Ian Stevenson "American children who claim to remember previous lives," J. Nervous
and Mental Disease 171 (1983) pp. 742-748


Ian Stevenson "Three new cases of the reincarnation type in Sri Lanka with written
records made before verification," J. Sci. Exploration 2, No. 2 (1988)
pp. 217-238


Ian Stevenson "Cases of the reincarnation type in northern India with birthmarks and
birth defects," J. Sci. Exploration 12, No. 2 (1998), pp. 259-293.


Antonia Mills, "A replication study: Three cases of children in
northern India who are said to remember a previous life," J. Sci.
Exploration 3, No. 2 (1989) pp. 133-184


Antonia Mills, "Moslem cases of the reincarnation type in northern
India: A test of the hypothesis of imposed identification, Part I:
Analysis of 26 cases," J. Sci. Exploration 4, No. 2 (1990) pp. 171-188


Antonia Mills, "Moslem cases of the reincarnation type in northern
India: A test of the hypothesis of imposed identification, Part II:
Reports of three cases," J. Sci. Exploration 4, No. 2 (1990) pp.
189-202


Jurgen Keil, "New cases in Burma, Thailand, and Turkey: A limited
field study replication of some aspects of Ian Stevenson's work," J.
Sci. Exploration 5, No. 1 (1991) pp. 27-59


Erlunder Haraldsson, "Children claiming past-life memories: Four cases
in Sri Lanka," J. Sci. Exploration 5, No. 2 (1991) pp. 233-261



Until then I stand by what I said. And your argument borders on a logical fallacy. No one has demonstrated an atom to me, but there is plenty of scientific literature to back it up.

Now, back to my work. [/B]

No-one has demonstarated life after death, but there are philosophical reasons and evidence to back it up.

[Open Mind]

Is this Edinburgh information new research ? I remember Wiseman talking about a similar investigation of the Edinburgh vaults a couple of years ago (I’m not sure if this is the same place referred to above?). This also had slightly unexpected results for Wiseman, a majority of people choosing (if I recall correctly) the two reportedly most haunted vaults from choice of several …...

...... this lead to Wiseman talking about getting funding to build a fake haunted building (I think they built a computer virtual reality one instead) to see what ordinary members of the public would sense or feel from creepy looking virtual building rooms by changing height of ceiling, light levels etc. ....... I really don’t see how this could hope to advance anything, most of us interested in the scientific evidence for psi already know that people can get very carried away imagining things and especially when they expect it. This does not rule out subtle psi effects could be easily masked by sensory images etc. or imagination etc. .....so I often fail to understand what Wiseman hopes to achieve in some of his experiments.

The funny thing is, even if he does find some psychological link between something visual and sense of being spooked ........if believers requested it was replicated, I suspect many of those psychological explanations would fail to be replicated when increasingly tighter controls were added ;) ....

[Chimpy]

Journal of Scientific Exploration???? I will repeat: cite a real, scientific, peer-reviewed journal not something that rambles on about UFOs and ET. Unfortunately for you, I am well acquainted with woo-woo literature. Nonsense dressed up with fancy words is still nonsense.

When you can come up with a proper study let me know, until then I'm done with this thread.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chimpy
Journal of Scientific Exploration???? I will repeat: cite a real, scientific, peer-reviewed journal not something that rambles on about UFOs and ET. Unfortunately for you, I am well acquainted with woo-woo literature. Nonsense dressed up with fancy words is still nonsense.

When you can come up with a proper study let me know, until then I'm done with this thread. [/B]

I am not aware of there being anything wrong with the "Journal of Scientific Exploration". It is a scientific peer reviewed journal. If it is peer reviewed, then what's your problem??

But still, in order to stop your whining here is some peer reviewed work not in that journal:

On Reincarnation

"American children who claim to remember previous lives," by Ian Stevenson (J. Nervous and Mental Disease 171 (1983) pp. 742-748).

The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 164:305-326, 1977.)

The Southeast Asian Interpretation of Gender Dysphoria: An Illustrative Case Report by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 165:201-208, 1977.)

Characteristics of Cases of the Reincarnation Type Among the Igbo of Nigeria by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Asian and African Studies XXI:204-216, 1986.)

Three New Cases of the Reincarnation Type in Sri Lanka with Written Records Made before Verification by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 176:741, 1988.)

Does the Socio-Psychological Hypothesis Explain Cases of the Reincarnation Type? by Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Sybo Schouten. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 186:504-506, 1998.)

The Phenomenon of Claimed Memories of Previous Lives: Possible Interpretations and Importance by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Medical Hypotheses 54(4):652-659, 2000.)

An Unusual Birthmark Case Thought to be Linked to a Person Who Had Previously Died by Dr. Jürgen Keil and Dr. Jim B. Tucker. (Psychological Reports 87:1067-1074, 2000.)

Ropelike Birthmarks on Children Who Claim to Remember Past Lives. by Dr. Ian Stevenson (Psychological Reports 89:142-144, 2001.)

Can Cultural Beliefs Cause a Gender Identity Disorder? by Dr. Jim B. Tucker and Dr. Jürgen Keil. (Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality 13(2):21-30, 2001.) (Report of a child in Thailand who was born with a birthmark that matched a mark made on the body of his deceased grandmother. As he got older, he claimed to be his grandmother reborn, and he demonstrated cross-gender behavior).

Cases of the Reincarnation Type with Memories from the Intermission Between Lives by Poonam Sharma and Dr. Jim B. Tucker. (Journal of Near-Death Studies 23(2):101-118, 2005.)


On Near-Death Experiences

Near-Death Experiences: Relevance to the Question of Survival after Death by Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Bruce Greyson. (J. Am. Med. Assn. 242:265-267, 1979.)

Increase in Psychic Phenomena Following Near-Death Experiences by Dr. Bruce Greyson. (Theta 11:26-29, 1983.)

Near-Death Experiences Precipitated by Suicide Attempt: Lack of Influence of Psychopathology, Religion, and Expectations by Dr. Bruce Greyson. (J. Near-Death Stud. 9:183-188, 1991.)

Can Experiences Near Death Furnish Evidence of Life after Death? by Dr. Emily Williams Kelly, Dr. Bruce Greyson, and Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Omega 40:513-519, 1999-2000.)

Near-Death Experiences with Reports of Meeting Deceased People by Dr. Emily Williams Kelly. (Death Studies 25:229-249, 2001.)

And more general articles:

Research into the Evidence of Man's Survival after Death by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 165:152-170, 1977.)

The Contribution of Apparitions to the Evidence for Survival by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (J. Am. Soc. Psychical Research 76:341-358, 1982.)

Do We Need a New Word to Supplement "Hallucination"? by Dr. Ian Stevenson. (Am. J. Psychiatry 140:1609-1611, 1983.)

The Survival Question: Impasse or Crux? by Dr. Emily Williams Cook. (J. Am. Soc. Psychical Research 81:125-139, 1986.)

Two Tests of Survival after Death: Report on Negative Results by Dr. Ian Stevenson, A. Oram, and B. Markwick) (J. Soc. Psychical Research 55: 329-336, 1989.)

The Case of Giuseppe Riccardi: An Unusual Drop-In Communicator in Italy by Dr. Ian Stevenson, S. Ravaldini, and M. Biondi. (J. Soc. Psychical Research 56:257-265, 1990.)

The Subliminal Consciousness: F.H.W. Myers's Approach to the Problem of Survival by Dr. Emily Williams Cook. (J. Parapsychology 58:40-58, 1994.)

[dann]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Hang on a sec, hang on a sec, hang on a sec. Groups of volunteers were sent to 4 locations with 2 allegedly being haunted. But I bet you they knew beforehand (i.e they were told by Wiseman) that some of these locations were allegedly haunted. So your conclusion that people find almost 50% of all buildings haunted is utterly absurd.Hang on a sec, Ian, and read what I write! "Pretty impressive, actually, that almost fifty per cent of all buildings seem to be 'haunted' when you make this kind of test," I don't conclude what you think I conclude! (What else is new?!) And instead of betting, take a look at what the original post said:Professor Wiseman sent groups of volunteers to four locations without telling them that only two had a strong reputation for being haunted. The aim was to compare reports from the different sites.

About 70 per cent of those visiting the haunted locations reported unusual phenomena. In contrast, only 48 per cent of people exploring the locations not reputed to be haunted had spooky experiences.

At the most haunted site, where a sinister figure in black has been seen repeatedly, something strange happened to more than 80 per cent of the volunteers.Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do your own experiment. Try sending people to a building, but don't mention that it might be haunted. Ask them if they felt it was haunted afterwards (or better still just ask them if they felt anything at all and allow them to elaborate). Now try sending people to a building but with the prior suggestion that it is (or might be) allegedly haunted, then ask the same questions afterwards. You would be remarkably naive to imagine that the results will be the same!Yes, you would be, and, no, I'm not!And on this note the experiment could have been conducted better. The same people should have visited all 4 locations and told beforehand that 2 of them were haunted. I bet if they were asked to pick out the haunted locations the figures would be much more impressive.Slightly different experiment. But still ... Why don't you do it yourself, then you don't have to bet!dann: "and I bet that the superstitious won't stress this piece of empirical 'fact'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian: Because it's not relevant for the reasons I've expressed above. So now the superstitious only ignore irrelevant facts?They are pretty shrewd, the superstitious!
dann: "So far he's only managed to isolate a phenomenon that needs an explanation: a correlation between alleged haunted houses and the feeling of being haunted. That in itself doesn't strengthen anything."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian: No, not just a feeling. There have been reports of apparitions, phantom footsteps, unexplained cold spots and unseen hands. Don't ignore facts which are inconvenient to your skeptical hypothesis. Which facts do I ignore? The phenomenon in this case is that the people in this experiment return from a trip to four locations, two of them allegedly haunted, and report certain feelings. Don't ignore facts, Ian, just because they may not be convenient to your woowoo beliefs!

By the way, are you identical with Dr. Ian Stevenson, the reincarnationist?

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by dann
By the way, are you identical with Dr. Ian Stevenson, the reincarnationist?

Ah. That would explain a lot.

Besides, what he's not getting is that if someone did anthropological studies of reincarnation it wouldn't "prove" reincarnation, it would merely show the people who believe it, what they believe etc. I was thoroughly amused by the J our Scientific Exploration... plenty of UFOs, google it for pure amusement.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Chimpy
Ah. That would explain a lot.

Besides, what he's not getting is that if someone did anthropological studies of reincarnation it wouldn't "prove" reincarnation, it would merely show the people who believe it, what they believe etc. I was thoroughly amused by the J our Scientific Exploration... plenty of UFOs, google it for pure amusement.

Chimpy,

Do you think you would consider finding copies of the papers that Ian linked and reading them?

[Chimpy]

I will have a look at the J. of Nervous Medicine later (exam time, sorry but I don't want to fail:-) ), J of Scientific Exploration is as woo woo as it gets and yes I have looked at it before. With reference to ETHNOGRAPHIC studies of reincarnation I have read plenty, given that I am an archaeologist. They are ethnographic not scientific accounts. This does not mean that they do not have any value btw. They are valuable to the discipline of anthropology etc.

[dann]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Do you think you would consider finding copies of the papers that Ian linked and reading them? I didn't see him link any papers ...?????

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by dann
I didn't see him link any papers ...?????

He gave a list of refs. J of Sci Exploration is online, abstracts only (but I've seen full paper copies elsewhere). Most journals don't give free access to the full text anyways, they make you subscribe. Lucky me, I'm on a uni network:-)

[dann]

Above I had a question for the guy who calls himself Interesting Ian: Originally posted by dann 05-23-2005 06:13 AM
By the way, are you identical with Dr. Ian Stevenson, the reincarnationist?

[Hastur]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And certainly no-one has demonstrated that there isn't.
Appeal to ignorance. Bad philosopher. No rear parking.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No-one has demonstarated life after death, but there are philosophical reasons and evidence to back it up.
And the value of this "evidence" -- nothing. Until there is tangible evidence of an afterlife, it remains something that cannot rationally be maintained.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dann
Above I had a question for the guy who calls himself Interesting Ian:

No I am not Ian Stevenson.

[Interesting Ian]

Chimpy
No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death.

Interesting Ian
And certainly no-one has demonstrated that there isn't.

Hastur
Appeal to ignorance. Bad philosopher. No rear parking.


I presume these words should be directed at Chimpy too?

[Hastur]

No, only you, Ian. While Chimpy is on the brink of the appeal to ignorance as well, his statement is at least justified under parsimony. With no credible evidence of an afterlife, the only logically viable position is that there is no afterlife. This position is subject to change, though, if such credible evidence emerges.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Hastur
[B]No, only you, Ian. While Chimpy is on the brink of the appeal to ignorance as well, his statement is at least justified under parsimony.



Parsimony is not an immutable law of the Universe. Should we disbelieve physicists with their claim that there exists a plethora of subatomic particles? Afterall, the law of parsimony states they cannot exist :rolleyes: Neither does so-called "parsimony" always support the materialist metaphysic. Parsimony does not trump logical incoherency I assure you.



With no credible evidence of an afterlife,



I've referenced a long list of papers. Have you read them all? Have you read any??.

[Chimpy]

Originally posted by Hastur
No, only you, Ian. While Chimpy is on the brink of the appeal to ignorance as well, his statement is at least justified under parsimony. With no credible evidence of an afterlife, the only logically viable position is that there is no afterlife. This position is subject to change, though, if such credible evidence emerges.

It's a female chimp actually :-)
But I am not appealing to ignorance, plenty of people have tried to demonstrate life after death and it failed. Leaving that aside, every time a ghost or some such has been postulated, it's been shown to be a hoax or a case of people misinterpreting perfectly rational happenings.

[Chimpy]

And I have to add, (yet again and again) ETHNOGRAPHIC studies of reincarnation in no way demonstrate that reincarnation really happens. They are simply telling us about people who believe in this (one of the many beliefs/ritual practices out there). They have value for anthropology/ethnography but you cannot use these arguments to negate or "prove" reincarnation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chimpy
[B]And I have to add, (yet again and again) ETHNOGRAPHIC studies of reincarnation in no way demonstrate that reincarnation really happens.

I don't know what you're talking about. What ethographic studies?? Who is claiming they demonstrate reincarnation??

If you're referring to people in particular cultures believing in reincarnation, this obviously does not prove reincarnation. Nor does it provide any evidence for reincarnation. Nor does the fact that westerners tend to disbelieve in reincarnation constitute any evidence whatsoever.

Now why don't you read all these papers and get back to me.

[The Mighty Thor]

Is Ian Stevenson the chap who was on TV a while ago in a programme about reincarnation beliefs among the Druze?

If this is him - who was the skeptic who did the programme with Stevenson?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Chimpy

But I am not appealing to ignorance, plenty of people have tried to demonstrate life after death and it failed.



Yeah no-one has supplied definitive proof, it's a question of weighing up probabilities. The probabilities appear to favour survival.




Leaving that aside, every time a ghost or some such has been postulated, it's been shown to be a hoax or a case of people misinterpreting perfectly rational happenings.

People have seen apparitions throughout human history and across all cultures and something like 10-20% of all people have claimed to have seen an apparition. They have all been shown to be something else?? :eek: Come now.

The fact that some have been shown to be hoaxes and illusions constitute no evidence whatsoever against the notion that some ghosts have an external origin and do not have mundane explanations.

Clearly precisely those that can be shown to be hoaxes and illusions will be shown to be so, and those that can't will be ignored. The point being here is you cannot use induction for this type of situation!

[Hastur]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Parsimony is not an immutable law of the Universe. Should we disbelieve physicists with their claim that there exists a plethora of subatomic particles? Afterall, the law of parsimony states they cannot exist :rolleyes:
Why would that be? Parsimony only requires that redundant terms be as few as possible. Subatomic particles are not redundant terms in their relevant subjects. An afterlife that cannot be described nor conclusively proven IS redundant as a non-entity.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've referenced a long list of papers. Have you read them all? Have you read any??.
Appeal to authority. Tsk tsk.

[Hastur]

Originally posted by Chimpy
It's a female chimp actually :-)
But I am not appealing to ignorance, plenty of people have tried to demonstrate life after death and it failed. Leaving that aside, every time a ghost or some such has been postulated, it's been shown to be a hoax or a case of people misinterpreting perfectly rational happenings.

My apologies. :)
And you are not really appealing to ignorance, you are taking the parsimonious route; Ian is appealing to ignorance (and authority) with his dribble

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I presume these words should be directed at Chimpy too?

Chimpy
No one has yet demonstrated that there is life after death.

Interesting Ian
And certainly no-one has demonstrated that there isn't.

Hastur
Appeal to ignorance. Bad philosopher. No rear parking.


Ian- If there is life after death, proving it should be possible in principle. The fact that very little of the accrued evidence is convincing is the stumbling block for sceptics.

Proving the negative- that there is no life after death, seems to be prima facie impossible.

The two statements are not logically of equal validity.

As I'm sure you are well aware.

If you can think of a way to prove that there is no life after death, I would be very interested to read it.