What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Actually Sledge, I think you are genuinely confused. OK, I'll respond in detail.

You claim that first hand accounts, testimony, are not valid as evidence?
I assume you feel you are consistent in this? You certainly are more consistent than most, I grant you that, In the "can you help me understand what I saw" odd aircraft thread, you commented that without seeing it or having anything to go no it was not possible as I recall. Fair enough.

However, I'm going to assume you accept many first hand reports every day, to cope with life. So what I suspect you do is apply a Bayesian Prior Probability - you think loch monsters are extremely unlikely, so you therefore refuse to accept testimony of loch monsters? I assume you would have less reason to question the fact I am currently drinking coffee.

As such this is a form of a priori scepticism. You do not seek to understand and explain anomalies, you ignore them as having mundane but unexplained causes, based on your underlying philosophical axioms.

Is that roughly correct?
cj x

No.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Actually Sledge, I think you are genuinely confused. OK, I'll respond in detail.

You claim that first hand accounts, testimony, are not valid as evidence?

Let's try and clear this up (again, though FSM knows how often we have to go through this).
What is being said when people mention that anecdotes are not evidence is that anecdotes can not be solely used to validate themselves.
No branch of science (or law for that matter) will rely solely on an anecdote to reach it's conclusion.

With Poltergeist cases, all there ever is are anecdotes. Most of those anecdotes can be shown to be internally inconsistent, fraudulent or explained relatively easily by mundane and well known mechanisms.
Not a single one of them has ever been conclusively validated as an actual Paranormal entity.

Poltergeist research is based entirely upon people telling stories about their experiences. Any follow up work is based upon the assumption that these stories are accurate until proven otherwise (fallaciously using the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise). People using nothing but stories to validate that the story is true and because an explanation can not be found that adequately explains the story OMG! Poltergeists.

Whether people's scepticism is "a priori" or not has no bearing upon the burden of proof if the claimant to validate their claim with something more than just their claim.

Anecdotes are not evidence, they may be the starting point that can show us where to start looking for evidence. So far, when looking for evidence of Poltergeists, no paranormal entities have been found.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Sledge

No.

Fair enough. If you'd like to explain how I'm wrong feel free - otherwise well whatever you do works for you.

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Poltergeist research is based entirely upon people telling stories about their experiences.

What about Karger & Zicha (1968), Pratt & Palmer (1976), Persinger & Cameron (1986), Radin & Roll (1994), Maher & Hansen (1992), Maher & Hansen (1995)? These are all instrumentally driven papers?

PRATT. 1. G., & PALMER J., (1976) An investigation of an unpublicized family poltergeist. In J. D. Morris, W. G. Roll, & R. L. Morris (Eds.), Research in Parapsychology 1975. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press. Pp. 109-115.

RADIN D, & ROLL, W. G. (1994) A radioactive ghost in a music hall. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Convention of the Parapsychological Association, Univer. of Amsterdam, August 7-10.

MAHER M, & HANSEN G, (1992) Quantative investigation of a reported haunting using several detection techniques. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86, 347-374.

MAHER M, & HANSEN G (1995) Quantitative investigation of a "haunted castle" in New Jersey. Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 89, 19-50.

PERSINGER & CAMERON R (1986) Are earth faults at fault in some poltergeist episodes? Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 80, 49-73.

KARGER F, & ZICHA,G . (1968) Physical investigation of psychokinetic phenomena in Rosenheim, Germany, 1967. Proceedings of the Parapsychological Association, 5: 33-35.

There are instrumental approaches employed?

cj x

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Fair enough. If you'd like to explain how I'm wrong feel free - otherwise well whatever you do works for you.

cj x

Why don't you explain why first hand accounts aren't anecdotal? Second time of asking.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

There are instrumental approaches employed?

Non of which conclusively showed any paranormal entity.

Poltergeists as paranormal entities only exist within the stories people tell about them.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by cj.23

GeeMack, how delightful to see you here. I see you did not learn from your experience yesterday. I am condescending when faced with pseudo-scepticism yes. Have you ever considered going to do a course in Philosophy of Science? You might actually enjoy it, and learn something. If you are an a priori sceptic as you appear to be, fair enough. I'm a methodological sceptic. However I don't have time to engage today really - I'm still working on the Skeptical Inquirer paper and the literature behind it. I'm sure we can enjoy a nice chat this evening though?

cj x

.
Oh, the superiority!
It hurts!
Really hurts..
It puts anything you post in a badder light than previously.
Keep on digging.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Resume

They often do when those accounts include diagnoses.

.
Blood pouring from the skin adds credence to the anecdotal account of a gunshot wound.
Now, what is there to add credence to a ghost story?.... Nothing?

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Blood pouring from the skin adds credence to the anecdotal account of a gunshot wound.

Indeed a first hand testimony (anecdote) of a gun shot wound which after a very quick examination reveals no evidence of there actually being a gun shot wound would be dismissed without any further investigation being necessary.

"I was shot by a ghostly bullet from a ghostly gun and it's wounded my chakras" doesn't even need quick examination, it's an unfalsifiable story.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by cj.23

GeeMack, how delightful to see you here. I see you did not learn from your experience yesterday.

I learned that your arguments indicate an aversion to critical thinking which is far greater than it had initially appeared. I learned that no matter how patient and cooperative someone is in trying to help you past that hurdle, your replies show a steadfast resistance to that help. Shall we expect you to teach us more of the same today?

Quote:

I am condescending [...]

Indeed.

Quote:

[...] when faced with pseudo-scepticism yes.

Your willful ignorance of skepticism and critical thinking, to the extent that you tag skepticism as pseudo-skepticism, is noted. You're here at the JREF forums where the tools of critical thinking are freely made available to pretty much anyone who crosses the threshold. All you have to do is want to learn how to apply critical thinking. I find it interesting that believers put so much effort into resisting learning those tools.

Quote:

Have you ever considered going to do a course in Philosophy of Science? You might actually enjoy it, and learn something. If you are an a priori sceptic as you appear to be, fair enough. I'm a methodological sceptic.

My critical analysis of any claim starts where any analysis should start. I do not start from the middle, a method undertaken by you and Andyman409, where "poltergeists exist" and "poltergeists don't exist" are given equal weight. Your suggestion that people should be debunking claims which have never been objectively shown to be reasonable is BS. It's dishonest and wholly unskeptical.

Here's where skepticism starts...

Of all the phenomena which have been considered as possibly caused by poltergeists, how many times have those phenomena been objectively determined to be caused by poltergeists?

The honest answer is, of course, zero. There is no objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist, your persistent willful ignorance of that fact notwithstanding. If you want to make an argument that poltergeists exist, you build up from there, a process which you have not yet begun. The null hypothesis is something like...

All phenomena attributed to poltergeists is the result of purely natural mundane causes.

Falsify that and you might be onto something. In the meantime, all your whining about failing is just more whining and failing.

Quote:

However I don't have time to engage today really - I'm still working on the Skeptical Inquirer paper and the literature behind it. I'm sure we can enjoy a nice chat this evening though?

Why don't you try providing some objective evidence for the existence of poltergeists. And if you don't have any, maybe try being honest for a change and admitting that. The smarmy condescension doesn't appear to be moving your argument forward in the least.

[cj.23]

geemack. apologies if I was rude. I agree with you on the null hypothesis. And yes on knowledge of the issues in poltergeist research I may come over as rather confident. its what I do and so I'm pretty assertive. I'm sorry though if I offended you. I have a fairly open contempt for people who critique others research without putting the effort in -- and I am used to dealing with hard core academic sceptics so I apologise if I was hasty.

cj x

[SusanB-M1]

Originally Posted by Sledge

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y65...ledge/isee.jpg

Andyman409, has it occurred to you that you're in the wrong place? You keep asking for the best evidence on various supernatural topics. The vast majority of people here to not believe these things (ghosts, life after death, etc) exist, so don't have a "best" piece of evidence to offer. If you're really interested in the subjects, why not go to forums where people who do believe this junk hang out and ask them what the best evidence is? I'm sure we'd all be happy to discuss the results with you.

Well, I was just thinking of adding a post to suggest that a GH idea might be responsible, i.e. 'a gravity beam' caused, as far as I can gather, by the pyramids and affecting tectonic plates.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by baron

You hadn't a clue who he was before you looked on Wiki and you don't have a clue what's he known for. Maybe you shouldn't call him a fool for the same reason you shouldn't called Einstein thick.

Well I'm quite familiar with Wilson and his work. He's completetly failed to demonstrate that the phenomena he claims exist actually do so. Juts like all the other "researchers" in this field.
As for the comparison to Einstein...........

Originally Posted by baron

Of course, anybody who writes a science fiction novel is a fool. Obviously, like Colin Wilson, who has written over a hundred factual and non-factual books including numerous best-sellers and works of acknowledged literary merit. I'm wondering how many books you've managed to write and sell and contribution you've made to various fields of study.

So what? he's writen books, so have I. Where's his evidence for the paranormal.

Originally Posted by baron

I'm talking as someone who (1) actually researches what they talk about, (2) encourages others to do the same and (3) objects to the arrogant know-it-all assertions of people who have nothing better to do than ridicule someone for sceptical thinking.

Feel free to demonstrate your evidence.

Originally Posted by baron

Andyman409 - get used to this attitude, real sceptics have to put up with it all the time.

Oh dear not the "real skeptics" line again.

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

It was a melange of strawmen, red herrings, arguments from authority, ad hominems, and self-righteousness in defence of utter nonsense. How was any of that "well said"?

Indeed.

[cj.23]

Just to update, I have set up and organised a replication of a classic experiment in this area but having increased the number of participants by a rather significant level. It will run for thirty days, and I will then publish the replication, but it should actually throw some factual light on the subject. I won't describe it here and now as I don't want to have any effect on the participants or outcome, but I promise faithfully I shall make the paper available online to everyone once it's completed. If anyone would like to know more at this stage, simply pm me.

cj x

[Resume]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Just to update, I have set up and organised a replication of a classic experiment in this area but having increased the number of participants by a rather significant level. It will run for thirty days, and I will then publish the replication, but it should actually throw some factual light on the subject. I won't describe it here and now as I don't want to have any effect on the participants or outcome, but I promise faithfully I shall make the paper available online to everyone once it's completed. If anyone would like to know more at this stage, simply pm me.

cj x

Are some of the participants poltergeists?

If so . . .

Have you alerted the Nobel committee?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Resume

Are some of the participants poltergeists?

If so . . .

Have you alerted the Nobel committee?

I don't know. I rather hope not. It will make their filling in the consent and ethics forms really messy.

cj x

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I don't know. I rather hope not. It will make their filling in the consent and ethics forms really messy.

cj x

They could just it rap it out on a table or wall instead of using writing.

[Lusikka]

Andyman409 opened this topic "What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?" and said one book is the most authoritative book on the topic. The first three answers:

#2:

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

Just that book then? Great, You guys are going to be in for it, wasting your time with all those other books when all I have to read is one!

To answer your question. 0,nothing,nill

#3:

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

What is the best evidence for poltergeists?

None. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. The empty set. The null domain.

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

I agree with #2 and#3 of course. I wonder why you would like there to be evidence for poltergeists? For me, it is far more exciting and interesting to know that our brains have the capacity to imagine such things and write stories about them.

Like SusanB – is the majority here pleased with these answers? In my opinion they don't give very scientific or civil and polite impression.

For example Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore think the poltergeists are explained either by usual psychological phenomena or by tricks. Is this corroborated by the evidence? There is a good article about the evidence, here:
http://www.jerome23.wordpress.com/wh...probably-wrong.

Okay, the majority here will say that is not evidence at all, even as huge mass of anecdotes as ever is worth of nothing. But that majority also thinks skeptical rumors are better evidence than reports written by trained investigators who have been on the spot and themselves seen something happening, like William Roll for example. So there is nothing to do with those skeptics.

How can the following phenomena to be explained psychologically:
- several observers see an object flying slowly in the air
- a picture on a wall falls down with the string and hook intact
- there are metallurgical anomalies in metal pieces
- objects broken without visible cause
- very fragile objects falling on a hard floor without breaking

Most psychologists are unable to evaluate physical phenomena. If there are material traces, then material scientists are needed to explain them. But nothing is "proven" because:
- all the observers are lying
- they have psychological ability to deceive themselves
- there has been an unseen conjurer nearby

There we are.

[steenkh]

"Trained investigators"! You mean paranormal believers will somehow be able to turn anecdotes into evidence?

The bottom line is that poltergeists only appear when trickery is possible.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by steenkh

"Trained investigators"! You mean paranormal believers will somehow be able to turn anecdotes into evidence?

In science normally everything is evaluated taking in account what is known about the phenomena that are discussed. Not so in the "skeptical science", it seems.

Originally Posted by steenkh

The bottom line is that poltergeists only appear when trickery is possible.

How do you know that? Examples?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

In science normally everything is evaluated taking in account what is known about the phenomena that are discussed. Not so in the "skeptical science", it seems.

What evidence is not being taken account of? And what is "skeptical science"?

Quote:

How do you know that? Examples?

I think you have that backwards. You need to produce evidence of a poltergeist that isn't fake.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What evidence is not being taken account of? And what is "skeptical science"?

Skeptics don't know much about psi. In the skeptical literature the best psi-evidence is always missing, it is avoided. So carefully avoided that it seems to be dishonest.

Have you not yet noticed that skeptics believe they are all the time defending science and reason?

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I think you have that backwards. You need to produce evidence of a poltergeist that isn't fake.

Yes, I know. The skeptics are not obliged to produce anything. And naturally, lying and trickery is absolutely _always_ possible.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Like SusanB – is the majority here pleased with these answers?

They are correct. Whether anyone is pleased with them is hardly the point.

Quote:

In my opinion they don't give very scientific or civil and polite impression.

Your opinion is noted, but irrelevant.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by steenkh

"Trained investigators"! You mean paranormal believers will somehow be able to turn anecdotes into evidence?

Paranormal believers? Perhaps you can give some names as examples?

BTW, have you read this article:

Deception by Subjects in Psi Research
GEORGE P. HANSEN
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ySubjects.html

If you have read it, please tell your comments here.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Skeptics don't know much about psi. In the skeptical literature the best psi-evidence is always missing, it is avoided. So carefully avoided that it seems to be dishonest.

I don't suppose you can point to any of this 'evidence'?

Quote:

Have you not yet noticed that skeptics believe they are all the time defending science and reason?

If by 'defending' you mean 'using', then yes. You think they should be abandoned?

Quote:

Yes, I know. The skeptics are not obliged to produce anything. And naturally, lying and trickery is absolutely _always_ possible.

Skeptics are not claiming something which violates the laws of physics. It's odd that when the chances of lying and trickery are removed, or at least significantly reduced, that poltergeists and other paranormal phenomena disappear.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Paranormal believers? Perhaps you can give some names as examples?

BTW, have you read this article:

Deception by Subjects in Psi Research
GEORGE P. HANSEN
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ySubjects.html

If you have read it, please tell your comments here.

Have these new approaches lead to any actual evidence?

It's easy claiming there is some, an entirely different thing actually linking to it, it would appear.

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Skeptics don't know much about psi. In the skeptical literature the best psi-evidence is always missing, it is avoided. So carefully avoided that it seems to be dishonest.

So link to it so we can not avoid it...


... Alternatively just keep asserting that it exists and your assertion will be dismissed as easily as your claim.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

For example Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore think the poltergeists are explained either by usual psychological phenomena or by tricks. Is this corroborated by the evidence? There is a good article about the evidence, here:
http://www.jerome23.wordpress.com/wh...probably-wrong.

You know that's by cj.23, also posting in this thread?

Quote:

Okay, the majority here will say that is not evidence at all, even as huge mass of anecdotes as ever is worth of nothing. But that majority also thinks skeptical rumors are better evidence than reports written by trained investigators who have been on the spot and themselves seen something happening, like William Roll for example. So there is nothing to do with those skeptics.

Well, it may be interesting to analyse various reports of apparitions, which I think that paper is doing. I've tried reading it, but maybe I'm a bit slow because I'm finding it hard to determine what conclusions it comes to. It also suffers to some extent from the failing noted before, of using 'ghost' to mean nothing more than something that was perceived as a ghost, as well as apparently giving meaning to accounts in bulk that may individually be suspect.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Andyman409 opened this topic "What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?" and said one book is the most authoritative book on the topic. The first three answers:

[...]

Like SusanB - is the majority here pleased with these answers? In my opinion they don't give very scientific or civil and polite impression.

The very scientific answers were 0, nothing, nil, none, nada, zip, zero, zilch, the empty set, the null domain. That's quantitative stuff there, as scientific as it gets. Would you prefer those perfectly accurate answers to be couched in some kind of conciliatory waffling to make them civil or polite? Here, try this...

There is no objective evidence to support the claim that poltergeists exist.

Quote:

For example Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore think the poltergeists are explained either by usual psychological phenomena or by tricks. Is this corroborated by the evidence? There is a good article about the evidence, here:
http://www.jerome23.wordpress.com/wh...probably-wrong.

Okay, the majority here will say that is not evidence at all, even as huge mass of anecdotes as ever is worth of nothing.

Yes, you're catching on. A huge mass of anecdotes does not constitute objective evidence, and if presented as such is worth nothing. Correct.

Quote:

But that majority also thinks skeptical rumors are better evidence than reports written by trained investigators who have been on the spot and themselves seen something happening, like William Roll for example. So there is nothing to do with those skeptics.

It looks like you're trying to make nonsense sound all scientifical. But okay, these alleged trained investigators, who were they trained by, and where? What sort of special training does it take to investigate poltergesits, or even to investigate anything that is not objectively known to exist?

Quote:

How can the following phenomena to be explained psychologically:
- several observers see an object flying slowly in the air
- a picture on a wall falls down with the string and hook intact
- there are metallurgical anomalies in metal pieces
- objects broken without visible cause
- very fragile objects falling on a hard floor without breaking

Questions are not evidence. Your incredulity is not evidence. Your ignorance is not evidence. All the anecdotes that spurred those questions are not evidence, not one at a time and not when taken in bulk.

As a semi-professional magician I have the knowledge and skills to reproduce nearly all of the effects you've described.

And even if there were no mundane explanations for the anecdotes, that still would not lead to any particular conclusion, certainly not to a conclusion that requires the existence of something which has never been objectively shown to exist.

Quote:

Most psychologists are unable to evaluate physical phenomena. If there are material traces, then material scientists are needed to explain them. But nothing is "proven" because:
- all the observers are lying
- they have psychological ability to deceive themselves
- there has been an unseen conjurer nearby

Yes, those are just a few of the many plausible mundane explanations. There are many, many more. In any case, when scientifically considering the possible causes for an effect, the causes which are known to exist and which don't violate the known laws of physics are on the table. All causes that require making up entirely unknown agents can be pretty much summarily dismissed.

Quote:

There we are.

Yes, there you are. Please review the critical consideration I've given to your comments. Then perhaps you'll understand how you haven't provided a mote of support for the claim that poltergeists exist. This is the JREF where skeptics and critical thinkers are always glad to help.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Skeptics don't know much about psi.

Skeptics know there is no objective evidence to support the claim that psi exists. That's pretty much all anyone needs to know.

Quote:

In the skeptical literature the best psi-evidence is always missing, [...]

The most pragmatic explanation for that is it's missing because there is none.

Quote:

[...] it is avoided.

No, it's not avoided. It doesn't exist.

Quote:

So carefully avoided that it seems to be dishonest.

The truth may seem dishonest to you if you believe in magical powers. But noting that there is no objective evidence to support the existence of those alleged magical powers is as honest as one can possibly be.

Quote:

Have you not yet noticed that skeptics believe they are all the time defending science and reason?

Yes. That's one way of defining skepticism. Here at the JREF forums we teach the skills required to do that. If you ever care to learn the skills of critical thinking, just ask!

Quote:

Yes, I know. The skeptics are not obliged to produce anything.

Correct. It would be dishonest for the believers to shift the burden of proof. If you believe in psi or poltergeists, you are required to produce the evidence. It would be foolish to suggest the skeptics have any obligation to produce evidence for the nonexistence of something.

Quote:

And naturally, lying and trickery is absolutely _always_ possible.

Yes, it is. And oddly enough it is very often shown to be the cause of alleged paranormal effects. And not so oddly, magical powers are never shown to be the cause. Do you not find that little slice of reality the least bit compelling?

[SusanB-M1]

Lusikka

Why do you think you would prefer the explanations to be paranormal ones? Don't you think you are underestimating the capabilities of your brain by so doing?

When I was young, I was fascinated by astrology, palmistry, etc and read all sorts of stuff, including several books by Cheiro!!, but count myself lucky that I always had a sceptical turn of mind which kept my feet firmly on the ground!

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

In science normally everything is evaluated taking in account what is known about the phenomena that are discussed. Not so in the "skeptical science", it seems.

And we know that 'trained investigators' are precautions against fraud?

Quote:

How do you know that? Examples?

You want me to prove that the laws of physics are unbroken? Sorry, that is the null hypothesis; it is up to the poltergeist investigators to prove otherwise, and they better have damn good evidence!

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Paranormal believers? Perhaps you can give some names as examples?

What is a 'trained investigator'? I assumed that it was one who had been receiving training in recognising poltergeists, i.e. a paranormal believer. Or where can one receive such training? Can you give a name of a trained investigator who has studied poltergeists and who is not a believer?

Quote:

BTW, have you read this article:

Deception by Subjects in Psi Research
GEORGE P. HANSEN
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Article...ySubjects.html

If you have read it, please tell your comments here.

Thanks for pointing out the article to me. I found it good, but I wonder why you brought it, because it certainly does not give any examples of good research in poltergeists.

[Lusikka]

SusanB, thank you for your polite answer.

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

Lusikka

Why do you think you would prefer the explanations to be paranormal ones? Don't you think you are underestimating the capabilities of your brain by so doing?

I think you have misunderstood what I think. "Paranormal" is not an explanation at all. I prefer the term "psi" which is more neutral in my opinion. Psi is for me only a "working name" referring to unexplained observations. It is empty of background meanings such as ghosts, angels, quantum radiation, thought fields, and so on.

I don't think I am underestimating the capabilities of human brain, but I think you are overestimating them. Your brain is not able without mediation by muscles to bend spoons, draw screws out of walls, get ceramic fishes fall down from the wall with the hanging nail and string intact. These are observations I have myself made or have verified the observations by very reliable people I have known for a long time.

Originally Posted by SusanB-M1

When I was young, I was fascinated by astrology, palmistry, etc and read all sorts of stuff, including several books by Cheiro!!, but count myself lucky that I always had a sceptical turn of mind which kept my feet firmly on the ground!

Yes, I know your personal history well because I have read a good amount of your writings. I have even written about you and Savva on my blog, http://parapsykologia.blogspot.fi.

Perhaps it is best not to say more here. But I personally don't know who this Cheiro is and I have never been fascinated by astrology, palmistry, tarot, and so on. And I think my feet are firmly on the ground, also taking in account the material world.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Your brain is not able without mediation by muscles to bend spoons, draw screws out of walls, get ceramic fishes fall down from the wall with the hanging nail and string intact. These are observations I have myself made or have verified the observations by very reliable people I have known for a long time.

Please provide evidence that the brain is actually able to produce any of these paranormal effects.

I'm sure you'll be up for the Nobel prize and a million bucks!

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I don't suppose you can point to any of this 'evidence'?

You are right. You ought to tell me first what you mean with the word "evidence" in the case of poltergeists.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

If by 'defending (science)' you mean 'using', then yes. You think they should be abandoned?

In actual science scientist must be very careful about things called facts. Not so in skepticism.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

It's odd that when the chances of lying and trickery are removed, or at least significantly reduced, that poltergeists and other paranormal phenomena disappear.

How do you know that? Examples?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

Your brain is not able without mediation by muscles to bend spoons, draw screws out of walls, get ceramic fishes fall down from the wall with the hanging nail and string intact.

And you have evidence that these things happened by unconventional means? Please refer to the paper you yourself referred me to above.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by AdMan

Please provide evidence that the brain is actually able to produce any of these paranormal effects.

You have misunderstood me. I have never said the brain is able to produce psi-effects and I don't think so. I have always talked only about observations.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Lusikka

You have misunderstood me. I have never said the brain is able to produce psi-effects and I don't think so. I have always talked only about observations.

These are still paranormal phenomena you've supposedly observed. Please provide the evidence for these as described in peer-reviewed journals.

You can still earn the million.

[Lusikka]

Originally Posted by AdMan

These are still paranormal phenomena you've supposedly observed. Please provide the evidence for these as described in peer-reviewed journals.

It is not necessary, I think. Parapsychologists have written about similar observations during more than 120 years in their peer-reviewed journals.

[pakeha]

Lusikka, lots of people with varying levels of interest and time read these threads.
Not everyone has the background to knowlegeably sift through the information out there.
Why not post up what you think is the most convincing evidence for poltergeists?
I'd be interesting in seeing your short list of observed phenomena.