I’ve backed up with evidence the general trend I see in this community in the comment section of another one of Phil’s posts, the one were you confirmed that impression and aptly asked me why I wouldn’t “piss off” elsewhere.

I believe my full quote was along the lines of ‘Why don’t you piss off to 9/11 consipracy board.’ I thought it’d be your natural habitat. A place where individuals refuse to look facts in the face and spin data until it fits whatever they’re selling.

So now it’s up to you to not be a hypocrit and go back up your impression that the trend in the communities you take issue with is indeed that it’s mostly liars and nutters, and to an extent that it justifies making that assumption safely about the whole community. I’m waiting.

the communities I take issue with are creationists, anti-vaxxers, aids denialists, ufologists, conspiracy nuts and others like you who refuse to support their positions with any evidence and then cry foul when they get called out. If you want to defend these people by all means do so but you’re only sinking further into the whole you dug for yourself.

Besides – you ask me to just do the research myself, because I’m complaining about research not being done as I like it. How is that different from asking Phil to do the same? Still wanna use the word hypocrit, be my guest.

There’s no comparison between what you said

‘And would you not expect that person to shut up or contribute someting other than complaints ?”

and what I’m saying. Here you are telling Phil and skeptics like me to help find the evidence. (Notice how you say ‘contribute something then complaints’) I’m telling you to go find it yourself. There’s a clear difference.

I think it’s also worth reposting what you wrote that began this exchange.

“Move them out of the fringes, start up some large scale studies, and do away with it all. What are you so afraid o? To fail, because that would upset your small, comfortable universe? Or to succeed, and then nothing left for you to scoff at to make yourselves feel better?”

like why you introduced the term “supernatural”, or how you define it, or how by your definition this would make ghosts supernatural

I’m sorry but did you read the Blog post we’re all commenting on? Notice how it is explicitly about the supernatural?

But let’s say the case you seem to be expecting comes up, and I can’t answer your questions with decent examples…would that not take all wind out of your sails when you claim sufficient investigation of paranormal phenomena exists to already discount them ?

Because the sum of human experiences isn’t defined by a few organisations I can still make the claim ‘Despite looking nothing has been found’. It’s a win/win for me.

Aw come on, don’t be so shy and evasive. After all, if you wanna join the military…man up and define the terms you deem worthy to be introduced to the discussion.

dictionary.com being a couple clicks away to much trouble for you, is it?

“No, I couldn’t. I can’t find anything to back up any rational explanation for your beliefs, other than the usual crank need to feel like you’re an outsider exploring esoteric knowledge that “bad ol’ science” refuses to acknowledge.”

No offense, but you’re making a fool of yourself too, at least to any impartial reader of this exchange. I kinda doubt that. You keep referring to a belief of mine. You’ve shown that you can quote me – so why, after repeatedly being asked to do so, are you still failing to quote this belief of mine ?

I guess you can’t read, either. The quote of mine you used quite clearly states I can’t find any rational explanation for your (unstated) beliefs. I simply don’t know what they are. You claim to be interested in science, yet you want to investigate ghosts. Why not investigate Santa Claus? Millions of people have “seen” him! Why aren’t you ragging on scientists for ignoring this huge potential area of investigation? What are your motivations? I don’t know. I said I don’t know. Repeatedly.

Strike one.
.
I never claimed their work or methods were on shaky ground.

Yes you did. January 15, 7:24 am: “how can the model assuming that rule out alternative ones, when it rests on such shaky ground” Hypothesizing a “model” and testing it is the work of science. Therefore you are either ignorant of science or you are a liar.

Strike two.
.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how the concept of ghosts, as it is commonly understood, if true, would violate the laws of nature, and which ones specifically.

Well, for starters, the law of gravity, given that the “concept of ghosts” includes their ability to float about willy-nilly with no regard for gravity. Or the physics of gaseous bodies, since their ethereal bodies are “commonly understood” to be vaporous, yet they don’t dissipate or expand to fill the volumes that enclose them. And let’s see…how about acoustics? How does a vaporous being produce such clear sound when there’s nothing solid to vibrate? Gosh, that’s three right off the top of my head. How about electrostatics? Passing through solid walls without regard for the charges inside the atoms that make up those walls…

Strike three, but we’ll let you send another batter to the plate.
.

Lectures like that strike me as slightly funny, coming from someone who repeatedly had to be explained something so simple and essential to the scientific method like the appeal to ignorance, before he finally stopped this fallacious kind of reasoning.

See, this is really where you need to review those ufo nutter posts. They, like you, glom onto one particular phrase that makes them sound all sciencey, and then they keep repeating it, just in case nobody read it the first time.

Yes, dear, we know what an appeal to ignorance is. And by the way, it’s not “essential to the scientific method,” is it? Slightly detrimental, wouldn’t you say? Less emotion. More reason.

I left my language general because I actually cut you some slack and thought you didn’t need any specification.

Of course you did. Because gosh, people never require specifics when arguments are being made, do they?

You think you can lecture someone on science, but you fail to see the difference between a scientific theory that needs to be backed up by evidence, and a “view” – which is a personal interpretation of these theories, and up to our personal tastes, and doesn’t have any business in science ?

Ha. See what you just did there? How is “a personal interpretation of these theories” – a “view” – separate from a scientific interpretation, if that “view” is presented in a debate about the very science itself? Are you expressing your “views” here? They why are you “lecturing” Phil on how to do science? Oh, wait, you never actually lectured him on how to do science, did you? You just expressed your “view” that his “view” regarding someone else’s “view” was not polite.

Honestly, Leander, this is crank 101. Substituting pedantry for rational thought. Give us a break.

It was fun while it lasted, but I’m tired of your antics.

Of course you are, because none of us bow down to your greatness. Crank. Nobody believes me because they are bad scientists. Crank. Their all agin’ me. Crank. I’m going to go away to my Remote Sensing Conference and keep my esoteric wisdom to myself. Crank.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again….

Have a nice day.

Crank.

“I pointed out that it doesn’t look very good if you just stand around complaining, sometimes in an insulting way, about how peple are not doing something right.”

That’s funny. From my point of view, that is exactly what you are doing, Leander. You are assuming that Phil and others have not put forth effort to determine if ghosts are real, you complain that they haven’t done the work to your satisfaction, and yet you are unwilling to do the work yourself when others suggest it to you. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black syndrome.

Leander also said,

“I’m still waiting for you to explain how the concept of ghosts, as it is commonly understood, if true, would violate the laws of nature, and which ones specifically.”

That is exactly what we have been trying to do, but you aren’t listening. Your logically fallacy is that ghosts exist in the first place, and so scientists must therefore devise some method of detecting them. This is the opposite of how science works. Science is based on what we can observe and repeat under controlled conditions, eliminating all bias and human error. Ghost hunting has never withstood even the most basic scientific tests.

Oh, you don’t like the Loch Ness Monster analogy because why?

“But that’s because the nature of a Loch is not in dispute, and it’s relatively easy to thoroughly search it.”

The nature of air is not in dispute, but that’s where ghosts are supposed to exist. The nature of light and dark is not in dispute, but for some reason ghosts are believed to only come out at night. How about Bigfoot? Or the Yeti? Or werewolves? Aliens? UFO’s? These too are all examples of things people have claimed to see, but that have no evidence to support their existence. Which analogy to ghosts would you like?

“There’s no consensus on the nature of consciousness however,”

Oh really? How did you come to that conclusion? (Here’s the part where I normally would ask for your source, but you don’t seem to use them.) Have your degrees in psychology, biology and physiology taught you this? Oh, you don’t have those? Well, then you’ve studied psychology and neuroscience in college, right? Please tell me you at least googled “conciousness,” before making such a statement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conciousness

I think there is a great deal that we DO know about consciousness and the human mind, and very little that we DON’T know. And what we don’t know gets smaller and smaller all the time. Even if human consciousness could exist outside a body (which it can’t), there’s still no evidence that said consciousness could affect the real world in any physical way.

“Yes, it is pretty safe to say that Nessie doesn’t exist. But that’s because the nature of a Loch is not in dispute, and it’s relatively easy to thoroughly search it.”
What has the nature of the lake got to do with claims that Nessie exists or not?

“There’s no consensus on the nature of consciousness however, and as of yet no way to “thoroughly search it” in a way that would allow us to understand it well enough to say it can’t exist without a body.”
You’ve got to be kidding. Oh hang on. Anything I say to criticise this seemingly ridiculous statement will be returned with something like “why did you assume I meant human consciousness… I could have meant machine consciousness… blah blah blah”. Because that is what you do. You turn seemingly clear-cut statements into ambiguous doublespeak. Shift the goal posts so to speak. Very good. Carry on.

“Right there, you’ve made a claim without any evidence: “ghosts were the continued consciousness after death of an organism” That is a presumption or guess or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it.”

Sorry, but no. If I go and say “last time I checked, Superman was an alien from the planet Krypton”…does that constitute the claim that Superman is real ? Where in such a statement do you find such a claim, that suggests I think the thing referred to is real ?

“Because there is no proof, it is safe to say that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.”

I don’t like this analogy either. Yes, it is pretty safe to say that Nessie doesn’t exist. But that’s because the nature of a Loch is not in dispute, and it’s relatively easy to thoroughly search it. There’s no consensus on the nature of consciousness however, and as of yet no way to “thoroughly search it” in a way that would allow us to understand it well enough to say it can’t exist without a body. Your example is overly simplifying.

“Switching off sarcasm filter, since it doesn’t seem to be recognized…”

Don’t worry, it was recognised. Did you not pick up on that from my wording ? Hm. And it clearyly is a difference, I’m sorry if you don’t get that. I didn’t say it was his job. I pointed out that it doesn’t look very good if you just stand around complaining, sometimes in an insulting way, about how peple are not doing something right. Especially if you place value on education, you’re really making a fool of yourself if you keep doing that, instead of giving at least some constructive criticism. I don’t know how else to explain it to you, I hope this time the subtle difference is not lost on you.

“No, I couldn’t. I can’t find anything to back up any rational explanation for your beliefs, other than the usual crank need to feel like you’re an outsider exploring esoteric knowledge that “bad ol’ science” refuses to acknowledge.”

No offense, but you’re making a fool of yourself too, at least to any impartial reader of this exchange. You keep referring to a belief of mine. You’ve shown that you can quote me – so why, after repeatedly being asked to do so, are you still failing to quote this belief of mine ? So far you haven’t, and that behaviour suggests that you’re just trying to paint me into one of the few corners that you’re equipped to deal with.

“Their work builds upon the solid foundation laid by countless scientists working for years, decades, centuries before them. It uses the tools and techniques consistent with good science. It is not on “shaky ground,” as you claim.”

Maybe YOU should pay attention. Or it’s another one of your straw-men. I never claimed their work or methods were on shaky ground. The idea that consciousness depends on the brain is though. How did you say it again ? Oh right, “it seems”…

“It does not require the introduction of any paranormal theories or phenomena that do not follow the consistent laws of nature.”

I’m still waiting for you to explain how the concept of ghosts, as it is commonly understood, if true, would violate the laws of nature, and which ones specifically.

“That is the power of science. And that is why real scientists continue to employ its methods to investigate the natural world.”

Lectures like that strike me as slightly funny, coming from someone who repeatedly had to be explained something so simple and essential to the scientific method like the appeal to ignorance, before he finally stopped this fallacious kind of reasoning.

“No, you did not. Like all cranks, you use general language peppered with key phrases and sciencey-sounding words that is vague enough to give you the “outs” you need when called on your b.s.”

Dude, seriously, if you have any self-respect, cut that behaviour. I left my language general because I actually cut you some slack and thought you didn’t need any specification. It wasn’t an out, and obviously I didn’t need one, since I specified what I meant, and you failed to demonstrate how that specification would constitute BS. Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself like that.

“Case in point. Laughably so, and predictable.”

You don’t get it, do you ? You think you can lecture someone on science, but you fail to see the difference between a scientific theory that needs to be backed up by evidence, and a “view” – which is a personal interpretation of these theories, and up to our personal tastes, and doesn’t have any business in science ?

You know what cognitive dissonance is ? It’s what makes people start calling other people cranks, when they have nothing clever to back up their standpoint with. It was fun while it lasted, but I’m tired of your antics. Your behaviour suggests you still haven’t had a shred of a realization of how to engage in decent discourse – so I’ll leave you in peace, possibly even thinking that you’re a reasonable, civilized person, and “won”.

“lol how can you be sure you won’t get an apology? Are any of the accusations you’ve made? I’m sure you’re observing a general trend in the community and using that to determine the majority of cases.”

I’m far from being a hypocrit. I’ve backed up with evidence the general trend I see in this community in the comment section of another one of Phil’s posts, the one were you confirmed that impression and aptly asked me why I wouldn’t “piss off” elsewhere. So now it’s up to you to not be a hypocrit and go back up your impression that the trend in the communities you take issue with is indeed that it’s mostly liars and nutters, and to an extent that it justifies making that assumption safely about the whole community. I’m waiting.

“As I intend to join the military, this appeal to emotion won’t get very far with me.”

Uhm…oooookay.

“That would be asking them to do your job for you.”

You DO know the not-so-subtle difference between contributing advice and taking over the job, don’t you ?

“First of all, you did lie. You said you didn’t call for Phil to provide evidence for the supernatural when you’ve repeatedly called for him to investigate.”

I beg to differ, but I’m not sure if that’s of much use, since you clearly are incapable of seeing the difference between someone following up their criticism with some constructive advice and working to provide evidence themselves. I tried to explain…if you don’t get it, sorry.

“And third, why the hell would you make a claim you can’t support?”

What mysterious claim are you referring to now ?

“Remember what i said about evidence and how it discredits any position it does not support? Remember how you agreed with me?”

Remember my reply to that ? Did you comprehend it ?

“I was pointing out how easy it would be for you to get the funds and resources you want. So, I’ll ask again, why don’t you?”

You’re claiming it’s easy ? Let’s continue our “back-that-up” game. Pleaso do. Maybe you should know I’m not even a scientist. How would I then easily manage that, for research areas that are not even considered mainstream ? You gotta be kidding, right ?

Besides – you ask me to just do the research myself, because I’m complaining about research not being done as I like it. How is that different from asking Phil to do the same ? Still wanna use the word hypocrit, be my guest.

“Like I asked before, what trials are they conducting? And while we’re on that, how are they controlled? What are their results? What’s the review process? Is there a review process ?”

While we’re on all these questions…if you don’t care to answer mine (like why you introduced the term “supernatural”, or how you define it, or how by your definition this would make ghosts supernatural) – why would I answer yours ? You can’t just skip over answering my questions and expect me to answer yours.

But let’s say the case you seem to be expecting comes up, and I can’t answer your questions with decent examples…would that not take all wind out of your sails when you claim sufficient investigation of paranormal phenomena exists to already discount them ?

“*sigh*”

Aw come on, don’t be so shy and evasive. After all, if you wanna join the military…man up and define the terms you deem worthy to be introduced to the discussion.

But then, I’m not sure if I want you to. I’m pretty tired of your antics and insults as well. Go in peace, believing you’re a reasonable person, and maybe even that you “won” this one. In case of a guy like you, I don’t really care. Kuhnigget at least tried to inject some fun.

“Wait a minute, last time I checked ghosts were the continued consciousness after death of an organism, and making themselves visible to such an organism through this very organism’s sense organs that are made of substance and evolved to perceive substance – how exactly am I changing the subject ?”

Wait, stop. Stop. STOP! Right there, you’ve made a claim without any evidence: “ghosts were the continued consciousness after death of an organism” That is a presumption or guess or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. So far, in all of human history, no data has shown this to be true. There is currently no evidence to support the claim that a consciousness can exist outside of a living body.

You don’t like the leprechaun or flying pink unicorn analogies, so how about this one: Have you ever heard of the Loch Ness Monster? Someone many years ago made a claim that a creature resembling a dinosaur lived in Loch Ness. Despite YEARS of scientific study, not one shred of evidence has confirmed that such a creature does or ever did exist. Because there is no proof, it is safe to say that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist.

If you or someone else comes up with proof that shows that Nessie is real, then believers will be thrilled, and so will the scientists. If you or someone else comes up with proof that a consciousness can exist outside of a living body, then believers will be thrilled, and again, so will the scientists.

Fogiven. But yeah, you nailed it – it’s not the same. See my reply to Julian.

Switching off sarcasm filter, since it doesn’t seem to be recognized… Yes, they are the same. It is not Dr. BA’s, nor any scientist’s job to devise experimental procedures for someone else. If you want to investigate supernatural phenomenon, or if you want someone else to do so, then either devise your own experiments or fund someone who will.

I don’t find these little guys silly.

Yet you continue to fail to see the importance of the analogy, which you have only now acknowledged as being valid, compared to your earlier tirades. (See January 9, 12:49 pm). No scientist is investigating leprechauns because the “evidence” clearly points to a combination of folk beliefs (the science of sociology & anthropology) and the tendency for the uneducated human mind to interpret natural phenomena in anthropomorphic terms (the science of psychology). Likewise, no scientist is investigating ghosts because all the anecdotal “evidence” points to the exact same conclusions.

So you couldn’t find anything to backup your claim that my mission was promoting belief in ghosts ?

No, I couldn’t. I can’t find anything to back up any rational explanation for your beliefs, other than the usual crank need to feel like you’re an outsider exploring esoteric knowledge that “bad ol’ science” refuses to acknowledge.

I find the possible continuity of consciousness and what that would entail if indeed were true to be a very fascinating area of research.

Then go for it. But don’t get defensive if scientists don’t share your enthusiasm.
.

You said it yourself: “our understanding of consciousness is incredibly spotty”…

Ah, here’s the crux of the issue, Leander. Pay attention, this is important.

Yes, our understanding of consciousness is spotty, but…that understanding is getting better and better all the time, as biologists and chemists and psychologists and information theoriests continue to investigate the functions of the brain. Their work builds upon the solid foundation laid by countless scientists working for years, decades, centuries before them. It uses the tools and techniques consistent with good science. It is not on “shaky ground,” as you claim. It does not require the introduction of any paranormal theories or phenomena that do not follow the consistent laws of nature. It is growing deeper every year, and slowly but surely becoming less “spotty.”

That is the power of science. And that is why real scientists continue to employ its methods to investigate the natural world.

And that is why followers of “paranormal” and “supernatural” woo are not taken seriously, because nothing they have ever done even remotely compares to the achievements of science. Nothing. Not one thing. Unless, of course, you can point to an example. I’ll wait.

I didn’t specify which methods I was referring to, so you just assume I was referring to the easiest ones for you to discount ?

No, you did not. Like all cranks, you use general language peppered with key phrases and sciencey-sounding words that is vague enough to give you the “outs” you need when called on your b.s.

Defend his theories with testifiable, verifiable evidence, yes. I said VIEWS though.

Case in point. Laughably so, and predictable.

Have a nice day.

Brie or Camembert?

How can you be sure that that’s what EVERY SINGLE WITNESS is doing?

lol how can you be sure you won’t get an apology? Are any of the accusations you’ve made? I’m sure you’re observing a general trend in the community and using that to determine the majority of cases. Whether the trend is accurate is another issue but it’s pretty obvious you’re being quite the hypocrite right now.

Seriously, how do you like it when you try to do something, and someone is standing next to you just complaining how you’re not doing it right ?

As I intend to join the military, this appeal to emotion won’t get very far with me.

And would you not expect that person to shut up or contribute someting other than complaints ?

That would be asking them to do your job for you.

But I guess I’ll never get that in a place where people flatout call everyone a nutter or liar who can’t provide evidence for an experience they made, the nature of which you just don’t like.

First of all, you did lie. You said you didn’t call for Phil to provide evidence for the supernatural when you’ve repeatedly called for him to investigate. Second of all, Phil corrects himself when he’s wrong, as is obvious from all the edits he makes to his blog posts. And third, why the hell would you make a claim you can’t support? When a claim, any claim, flies in the face of the accumulated data and that claim can’t be verified it is going to be rightly attacked. Remember what i said about evidence and how it discredits any position it does not support? Remember how you agreed with me?

Misdirection, huh? My research? what the hell are you even talking about?

You complained that scientist won’t make their resources available to paranormal researchers. I was pointing out how easy it would be for you to get the funds and resources you want. So, I’ll ask again, why don’t you?

For example the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, the Parapsychological Association (affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science), the society for Psychical Research, or the Society for Scientific Exploration.

Like I asked before, what trials are they conducting?

And while we’re on that, how are they controlled? What are their results? What’s the review process? Is there a review process?

If they do count though – I wonder why Phil doesn’t like them.

Because nothing any of these paranormal investigators (or any paranormal investigator for that matter) have ever found is supernatural or magical or anything like that and yet they spin it until it is.

No, seriously, explain – if you wanna make a point.

*sigh*

Leander, when someone says the moon is made of cheese, whats the proper response?

“No, they’re just anecdotes.”

Yes, anecdotal evidence, motivated by something. Like a tree moving because of the wind. Simple really. No fallen leaves, meaning no hard evidence. So what kind of wind makes a tree bend without leaves falling ? It’s quite unscientific to assume this kind of wind in every case equals lies and crackpottery, without backing that assumption up. And if you don’t wanna be unscientific, you have to admit that the wind might be something more. Whether psychological or physical in nature, who knows. But that’s exactly why you should stop opposing investigation. So we will eventually know.

“Who said we hadn’t?”

Uhm, nobody. Did I say anybody said that ? Hm.

Your two paragraphs about anecdotal evidence are nice, but I nowhere suggested we just accept something based on anecdotal evidence alone as fact – so I don’t really see your point.

“Forgive the confusion. But then I guess “lending one’s scientific expertise” isn’t really the same as finding evidence for others, or doing their jobs for them.”

Fogiven. But yeah, you nailed it – it’s not the same. See my reply to Julian.

“And tell me again how a scientist – any scientist – is supposed to devise better detection methods for a phenomenon for which there has never been any physical evidence, is not predicted as a side effect of any known natural processes, nor is suggested as an outcome of any other scientific theory or hypothesis?”

He wouldn’t necessarily have to devise a better detection method. One way of intervening would maybe be – if he is indeed as fond of educating people as he claims – to tell these guys – mind you, without calling them nutjobs and the like – in a manner that suits a true educator, why their approach is not scientific, and what needs to be done before it can be so. For example establish whether it’s a physical or psychological phenomenon etc. Don’t see why that would be so hard, but I guess it’s hard to get someone to listen to your advice when you can’t sop peppering it with ridicule and insults.

“You could dig up tons of anecdotal evidence from folklore and tradition. You, personally, may find little green guys wearing spats and dancing jigs silly, but devising “scientific” methods of searching for them is no more irrational than trying to do the same for ghosts. Hand to face. Smack! (Since we’re now adding sound effects.)”

Ouch ! Man, you really gave it to me there, respect. I don’t find these little guys silly. I was conditioned to do so, but conditioning and looking for truth don’t really mix well, so I don’t let myself get influenced by the former. If the number of people who, today, still witness leprechauns, I guess I would see no reasons not too look into it to find out what’s the root of these sightings. You know, as a “reality-loving” person I don’t like making broad asumptions about something without proper investigation – neither in the form of ruling out something that seems silly according to my cultural conditioning, neither by assuming everybody who claims something I find unlikely through the lens of these conditionings is a liar or nutter. That’s neither “reality-loving” nor civilized.

“Then what is your mission?”

So you couldn’t find anything to backup your claim that my mission was promoting belief in ghosts ?

“Why, when there are so many better, more interesting, more productive areas of research that actually conform to the laws of nature and have mounds of evidence to back them up? Honestly, I guess I just don’t understand your motivation.”

It’s okay, don’t worry. Like I’ve stated before though, I find the possible continuity of consciousness and what that would entail if indeed were true to be a very fascinating area of research.

“How can consciousness continue if the synapses stop firing and the brain dies? How can it continue when the medium and the processes that create it are no longer there?”

You said it yourself: “our understanding of consciousness is incredibly spotty”, and you repeatedly, yourself, use the word “seems” when you state that consciousness needs a host. So, as long as this is the case – spotty understanding and something seemingly being the case – how can the model assuming that rule out alternative ones, when it rests on such shaky ground – as you yourself make clear ?

“Yet the concept of a “ghost” as a conscious entity flies in the face of all that”

Only if you assume without evidence that consciousness indeed needs a host – what only “seemingly” is the case. Furthermore we have no idea whether consciousness depends on the brain (is the brain or is generated by it), or whether the brain just acts as transmitter/receiver. In the latter case, if the brain is damaged, the interaction of consciousness with the brain would suffer. If you then assume, again without evidence, that consciousness is the brain or generated by the brain, you’d not find anything contradicting this idea – while it still might be false. So I don’t think it’s a leap at all. Our understaning is spotty enough to not rule out any of these models.

“And that’s not even getting into the whole “why do ‘ghosts’ wear clothes” angle. But…why do they?”

Well, to conclude that it is strange for ghosts to appear in clothes, you’d need to know something about the nature of ghosts, and I personally, don’t. And I think not knowing anything for fact about such an idea is shaky grounds to call any proposed property of this idea “strange”.

So again…how would ghosts violate our understanding of the physical world ? I know you didn’t introduce the term, but maybe you wanna answer (or not, fine too) why ghosts should be considered supernatural then ?

“No one has ever found anything. Nothing!”

Strange that they’re still looking here and there (and so far it never has been more than “here and there”) – if indeed they are as certain as you that there’s nothing to investigate.

“And how are our methods evolving? How is the TV program cited by Dr. BA evidence of this? “Investigators” carrying around electrician’s voltmeters and video cameras taping backlit dust particles? This is more sophisticated? No, it isn’t.”

I didn’t specify which methods I was referring to, so you just assume I was referring to the easiest ones for you to discount ? No, in fact I was referring to our studies of consciousness as done in the neurosciences, for example. Would you dispute that our methods of investigation are getting more and more sophisticated there ? And if they are, would that not mean in the future a phenomenon directly related to consciousness, could be investgated better ?

“A scientist must be constantly forced to defend his views – with testable and verifiable evidence – in order to assure that the insight those views may provide are sound.”

Defend his theories with testifiable, verifiable evidence, yes. I said VIEWS though. That’s not what science is about. It’s about gathering facts about our world, not about defending views/ideologies/paradigms. That’s what hurts science, whether it’s a pathological dislike for “paranormal” ideas or a pathological like for them.

“This has nothing to do with anything. Don’t change the topic. We’re talking about ghosts/ufos/demons ect not what matter is.”

Wait a minute, last time I checked ghosts were the continued consciousness after death of an organism, and making themselves visible to such an organism through this very organism’s sense organs that are made of substance and evolved to perceive substance – how exactly am I changing the subject ?

“Support your belief in the supernatural.”

Support your belief that I belief in the supernatural. Please, by all means, do.

“Taking an event you don’t entirely understand, jumping to conclusions about it and bragging about to your friends while updating it every few times you tell it.”

How can you be sure that that’s what EVERY SINGLE WITNESS is doing ? Would you care to back it up, if that generalized idea is indeed what you think ?

“We’re talking about credible evidence, right? You have none for ghosts/demons/possessions ect.”

Why would I have to ? Did claim ghosts etc. exist ? Where did I do so ? So far you’re building a post entirely on straw-men.

“Explain why ghosts would be supernatural.

-_-”

No, seriously, explain – if you wanna make a point. And it’s up to you to define terms you introduce into the discussion for whatever reason. You got no right accusing me (wrongly even) of misdirection if you evade things like that.

“judging by all the paranormal shows on t.v.”

That made my day. So now when it suits you these shows suddenly count as mainstream scientific investigation ? Good one. Bending things like you need them, huh ? If they do count though – I wonder why Phil doesn’t like them.

“You can’t provide evidence for your belief in the supernatural so you’re going to attack me, Phil and anyone who doesn’t agree with you.”

No. Because there’s no belief in the supernatural I need anybody to agree on. Again, back up this assumption or stop making it to evade addressing what I really said.

“Why don’t you find some rich donor (like many scientists do) to fund your research and then submit your findings to scrutiny? Do you have somehting to hide?”

Misdirection, huh ? My research ? what the hell are you even talking about ?

“can you name these people and the controlled trials they are performing?”

For example the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit, the Parapsychological Association (affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science), the society for Psychical Research, or the Society for Scientific Exploration. But that you don’t seem to be aware of these just supports the fact that it’s not mainstream science, and never has been. Thanks for making my point.

“And lay off the ad homs.”

Like ?

“You’ve been calling for Phil to investigate the paranormal and find evidence for it since you started posting here. Please stop lying.”

I’m not lying. I nowhere said that it’s up to Phil to support other people’s claims with evidence. I DID say that instead of just complaining about ways of finding evidence, he should maybe suggest a way to do it better. Seriously, how do you like it when you try to do something, and someone is standing next to you just complaining how you’re not doing it right ? And would you not expect that person to shut up or contribute someting other than complaints ? And do you see how that’s not the same as expecting the person to do your job altogether ? If that difference is not too subtle for you, you have no business calling me a liar and hold me responsible for supposed ad-hominems. If this wasn’t the blog it is, I’d expect an apology. But I guess I’ll never get that in a place where people flatout call everyone a nutter or liar who can’t provide evidence for an experience they made, the nature of which you just don’t like.

No, they’re just anecdotes. No branches whipping around, not even a leaf falling. No independent verification, no photos, no weather reports, no nothing. So how do we start looking? Who said we hadn’t?

I’m as curious about these things as the next person but anecdotal evidence is almost worthless. Most people are fallible when in comes to observation. But, again, there is nothing left behind, no photos, no evidence. As we have been trying say any one person can claim anything. We can not give the same weight to every claim or anecdote as a claim that has some verifiable evidence. If it can’t be tested, inferred, measured or whatever it may as well not exist.

As an aside, many observers see or hear what they want or expect to hear. I’ve listened to friends tapes of visit to clairvoyants where my friends will claim all sorts predictions or observations from the clairvoyant but when I’ve listened I’ve heard nothing but vague generalisations or the clairvoyant will repeat verbatim what my friend has said earlier in the session and my friend will claim it as evidence of the clairvoyant’s spooky powers. We humans are funny creatures.

january 14, 10:23:
You know, you’re not really in a position to accuse others of repeating themselves. Nowhere – ABSOLUTELY EFFIN NOWHERE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT’S GOOD – have I said it’s up to him to find evidence for other people’s claims. STOP MAKING IT LOOK LIKE I SAID THAT ! Or back up your idea that that’s what I’m saying with a quote. Until now you have failed to do so.

january 14, 10:23:
“No, he (Dr. BA) thinks chasing after ghosts with phony “scientific” equipment operated by people who make claims that dust motes are ectoplasm is silly. It is.”
Like I said, then he should lend his scientific expertise and suggest a better way of investigation, or stop whining.

Forgive the confusion. But then I guess “lending one’s scientific expertise” isn’t really the same as finding evidence for others, or doing their jobs for them. And tell me again how a scientist – any scientist – is supposed to devise better detection methods for a phenomenon for which there has never been any physical evidence, is not predicted as a side effect of any known natural processes, nor is suggested as an outcome of any other scientific theory or hypothesis?

I know you don’t like the leprechaun analogy, but honestly, do you really not see the parallels? In Celtic cultures the little people were “sighted” and believed in just as aggressively as your ghost-hunters see and believe in ghosts. You could dig up tons of anecdotal evidence from folklore and tradition. You, personally, may find little green guys wearing spats and dancing jigs silly, but devising “scientific” methods of searching for them is no more irrational than trying to do the same for ghosts. Hand to face. Smack! (Since we’re now adding sound effects.)

Please present a quote that shows how exactly it is my mission to concinve people of the existence of ghosts, let alone that it is my conviction that ghosts exist.

Then what is your mission? To encourage scientists to hunt for ghosts? Why, when there are so many better, more interesting, more productive areas of research that actually conform to the laws of nature and have mounds of evidence to back them up? Honestly, I guess I just don’t understand your motivation.

Tell me what principle or law of physics that arises from presently known scientific data rules out the continuity of consciousness, and its appearance in some form to the living.

Now this is an interesting question. First off, as I’m sure I don’t need to say, our understanding of consciousness is incredibly spotty. However, we can state a few things unequivocally. First and foremost…consciousness seems to require life (I’m going to ignore artificial intelligence for a moment. I’m sure you’re okay if we assume for now ghosts aren’t artificial constructs?), which requires a biological host. Rocks aren’t alive. Long-dead pieces of wood and plant matter aren’t alive. No rocks or dead plants have ever shown any sign of being aware. So, to put it another way, consciousness requires a medium to carry it around, and that medium must be supported by on-going biological processes that provide fuel for electro-chemical processes that – somehow! – create our thoughts and our self-awareness.

That’s where the conflicts with “ghosts” start coming into play. Consciousness seems to require a complex mechanism like a brain, filled with gazillions of synapses firing off (some of the most active ones firing over a thousand times a second, if memory serves) continuously. How can consciousness continue if the synapses stop firing and the brain dies? How can it continue when the medium and the processes that create it are no longer there? Look what happens when a brain is even slightly damaged: consciousness is radically handicapped, even destroyed. Everything we’ve learned about how the brain functions tells us that it’s “hold” on conscious thought is incredibly tenuous. Take away even a bit of the biological stuff it needs and poof! It’s gone. Yet the concept of a “ghost” as a conscious entity flies in the face of all that. A ghost is consciousness without a brain, without synapses, without electro-chemistry, without an energy source, without all the stuff that scientists have found life as we know it needs.

So, yeah, it’s kind of a leap, don’t you think? And that’s not even getting into the whole “why do ‘ghosts’ wear clothes” angle. But…why do they? Why does a huge chunk of all that anecdotal evidence you love to cite include observations of ghosts wearing clothes? Or carrying objects?

The usual new-agey response to that conundrum is something to the effect of, “Oh, well, that’s just the observer’s interpretation of the phenomenon.” Yeah, well, if that door is opened, then why not just accept that the phenomenon is all a result of the observer’s interpretation…interpretation of events that don’t lie outside the bounds of the well-established natural laws? Since you bring up Occam’s Razor, perhaps you’d care to wield it on that one.

No evidence for ideas that are not off the table doesn’t mean anything. Not if the ideas have never been subject to large-scale mainstream scientific investigation, but instead ridicule and pathological opposition. Not if a thorough understanding of the involved factors, substance and consciousness, is still lacking and
updated. Not if our methods of investigating these things are constantly evolving and getting more sophisticated.

But, Leander, the evidence has been investigated. Repeatedly. Throughout history there have been rational people looking into accounts of ghosts and supernatural phenomena. No one has ever found anything. Nothing!

And how are our methods evolving? How is the TV program cited by Dr. BA evidence of this? “Investigators” carrying around electrician’s voltmeters and video cameras taping backlit dust particles? This is more sophisticated? No, it isn’t.

The science community would be a better place if it was free from people feeling the need to protect their views, especially when it’s in such primitive ways.

This, Leander, will be our biggest disagreement. Science is the most powerful tool we have to study and understand the universe. A scientist must be constantly forced to defend his views – with testable and verifiable evidence – in order to assure that the insight those views may provide are sound.

If scientists suddenly could start claiming their findings were true without defense, simply because they want to believe, or because their feelings might get hurt, then we’d be back in the dark ages when Truth was defined by decree, not investigation.

I cannot emphasize that last bit enough.

Have a nice night.

Not in a universe this vast with no consensus in the scientific community on questions like the nature of consciousness and substance, or their relationship

This has nothing to do with anything. Don’t change the topic. We’re talking about ghosts/ufos/demons ect not what matter is. Support your belief in the supernatural.

Calling anecdotal evidence by people who experienced something they can’t explain, yet are not so afraid to be ridiculed by people like you that they would keep it from the rest of the world, “drinking stories” is resorting to unfair tactics

That’s exactly what a drinking story is. Taking an event you don’t entirely understand, jumping to conclusions about it and bragging about to your friends while updating it every few times you tell it.

Besides this is more misdirection. We’re talking about credible evidence, right? You have none for ghosts/demons/possessions ect.

Explain why ghosts would be supernatural.

-_-

And “keep looking” ? You mean because we have been looking so vigourously so far ?

judging by all the paranormal shows on t.v.

What are you so afraid of ? To fail, because that would upset your small, comfortable universe ?

Even more misdirection. You can’t provide evidence for your belief in the supernatural so you’re going to attack me, Phil and anyone who doesn’t agree with you.

btw, I’m sure you could get the money you want from some hollywood couple if you tried. My question is, why don’t? Why don’t you find some rich donor (like many scientists do) to fund your research and then submit your findings to scrutiny? Do you have somehting to hide?

A part of the people does, but there’s people genuinely interested in finding out the truth. No sane person would argue that.

can you name these people and the controlled trials they are performing?

And lay off the ad homs.

Nowhere – ABSOLUTELY EFFIN NOWHERE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT’S GOOD – have I said it’s up to him to find evidence for other people’s claims.

You’ve been calling for Phil to investigate the paranormal and find evidence for it since you started posting here. Please stop lying.

table for many decent, reasonable, science- & “reality-loving” people – even respected scientists. If you don’t know that, you should leave that comfy circle

of people who think like you every once in a while to broaden your horizon. So why do you want them to be off the table ? Actually it’s you guys who have

been repeating yourselves – you keep saying “because there’s no evidence”. And that’s a reason to not take an idea as fact – but that’s all. No evidence for

ideas that are not off the table doesn’t mean anything. Not if the ideas have never been subject to large-scale mainstream scientific investigation, but

instead ridicule and pathological opposition. Not if a thorough understanding of the involved factors, substance and consciousness, is still lacking and

updated. Not if our methods of investigating these things are constantly evolving and getting more sophisticated. No self-respecting person, especially not

scientists, would under these circumstance ridicule an idea and be so hellbent on making it look as if it was not worth considering – except for ideological

reasons. And this is the part where the ideals of science, a quest for knowledge, are stabbed in the back.

The people I mentioned above can calmly talk about unexplained phenomena, the possibility of ghosts, ETs visiting us etc. without going into attack mode,

without making attempts to ridicule these things, without calling people who are intrested in these ideas “woo-woos”, “nutjobs” and “crackpots”. What does

that say about people though who do resort to that kind of behaviour, like Phil and you guys ? Behaviour like that shows an underlying aggression. That’s

what’s necessary to ridicule someone, to call them names. Aggression. It is usually a response to being threatened in one way or another – in discussions

like these clearly not on a physical, but on an ideological level. But if you were okay with the fact that you don’t have all the answers and actually might

be wrong – why would you feel threatened by people whose ideas suggest that ? Only if you’re not okay with the fact that you might be wrong, only if you need

your favoured explanation of the world to be right could you ever feel threatened by suggestions that the world doesn’t work the way you think it does – even

if there’s no evidence for that yet. But this is irrational behaviour that gets in the way of clear thinking, to which the scientific method belongs. The

science community would be a better place if it was free from people feeling the need to protect their views, especially when it’s in such primitive ways.

“a) Post your argument yet again, addressed to someone else,”

I’ll post any argument, in response to points made by someone else, in modified (hopefully clarified) form, as long as it takes for whoever is addressed to to exhibit signs of actually understanding it – and I’ll do so as my time permits. That’s what I consider respectful discourse. I don’t really see your point, unless of course, you’d rather have mud-slinging.

“b) Quietly fade away,”

Sorry, no such luck, even though it sometimes might seem like that. You know, “real life” stuff getting in the way of these funny little exchanges. Though sometimes I wonder whether your stamina when it comes to responding to things not even said, or veering completely off-topic, are really due to misunderstanding, or a tactic to get me to do exactly that – quietly fade away, because your tiresome by-the-book arguments don’t really apply to what I’m trying to tell you, and you’re just lost in cases like that.

“c) State something to the effect of “you people are too close-minded, I’m can’t have a real discussion about this incredibly important subject”, or”

You heard that before ? Hm, I wonder why. Me personally, in cases like that, I start to wonder whether it’s really all the people who keep telling me this that are somehow wrong – or whether it’s just me. Maybe you wanna try Ockham’s Razor on that one.

“d) Actually present some evidence backing up your thesis.”

And what’s the thesis that needs backing up ? With quotes please, because you’ve repeatedly failed to back up with quotes the things you claim I’m stating.

So you’re the one around here defining the “nutter line” ? Hm, I can see why that would be so.

“including the tendency to repeat yourself, only using many more words to do so.”

Well, I’m sorry, but it seems to take so many words with you. I don’t like repeating myself, but if you so insistently address claims I didn’t even make and fail to understand what I’m really saying…what else can I do ?

“No, he (Dr. BA) thinks chasing after ghosts with phony “scientific” equipment operated by people who make claims that dust motes are ectoplasm is silly. It is.”

Like I said, then he should lend his scientific expertise and suggest a better way of investigation, or stop whining.

“It has been so established. There is no evidence for them.”

I know, I’m repeating myself. But you know, so do you. You keep throwing this fallacious line of reasoning at me. Lack of evidence for a phenomenon does not establish its non-existence. I indeed haven’t read “The Demon Haunted World” in full, but I don’t need to to understand this simple logic. Sadly, for you reading the book doesn’t seem to have done much. If you want me to stop repeating myself – work on your understanding of appeal to ignorance, until you see why your reasoning is fallacious.

“Not lack of hard evidence…lack of any evidence.”

Blatantly false. Are you even serious, or are you trying to frustrate me until I go away ? There’s no hard evidence, but heaps of anecdotal evidence don’t equal no evidence at all.

“You can’t confirm facts that don’t exist.”

Again, you seem to think you know more than the rest of the world – namely that ghosts don’t exist. If you wanna claim there’s no hard evidence, fine. But there’s no grounds for saying they don’t exist at all – it’s a negative claim. And like Shane said, you can’t prove a negative. So a negative claim can never be backed up, which makes me wonder…who in his right mind would claim a negative as fact ?

“BA’s reasoning is not fallacious and it is not up to him to find evidence to refute a theory that has no evidence supporting it.”

You know, you’re not really in a position to accuse others of repeating themselves. Nowhere – ABSOLUTELY EFFIN NOWHERE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT’S GOOD – have I said it’s up to him to find evidence for other people’s claims. STOP MAKING IT LOOK LIKE I SAID THAT ! Or back up your idea that that’s what I’m saying with a quote. Until now you have failed to do so.

“I have no “beliesf”. I have a conclusion based upon the evidence. To wit: no evidence for ghosts.”

If you have gone back by now and studied your “Baloney Detection Kit” a little more in-depth, you know the answer to that. Just saying – I don’t wanna keep repeating myself, you know ?

“Just as there is no evidence for leprechauns and I therefore conclude they do not exist.”

………..*thump*

“Now if you’d like to convince me otherwise, I’d be happy to examine your evidence for a different conclusion.
Please present it.”

Please present a quote that shows how exactly it is my mission to concinve people of the existence of ghosts, let alone that it is my conviction that ghosts exist. Thank you.

“Are you for real? The fact that you put “paranormal” and “science” in the same paragraph suggests otherwise.”

I don’t really see why they wouldn’t be mentioned together like that. And you know what, if you can refer me to old UFO threads, then I’ll just take the liberty to refer you to a dictionary to figure out why I thank that. It is, after all, quite exhausting to answer you.

“Although in a certain light, you are right. “Natural science” has not seen anything in the data yet…BECAUSE THERE IS NO DATA!”

Tell me what principle or law of physics that arises from presently known scientific data rules out the continuity of consciousness, and its appearance in some form to the living. And just in case, your lack of imagination is not a physical law.

“You can’t see the wind but you can see the trees bend. With ghost claims there are no “trees bending”.”

I beg to differ. I consider people reporting sightings of ghosts or UFOs “bending trees”. Why they bend is the question. To broadly assume without backing this assumption up that they’re all liars or nutjobs and nothing’s going on beyond that, is very unscientific. If this is your explanation of these things – back it up ! Just prove that they’re all lying or nutjobs, instead of making a a generalizing assumption in the most unscientific way.

“We can not prove a negative. Ghosts, god, fairies and pink unicorns may indeed exist but until some verifiable evidence is produced no amount of anecdotal claims will suffice.”

If that’s your position, I wonder why you are not among the people suggesting these fringe areas should become objects of mainstream science. Shouldn’t you not be interested in these things as a curious person ?

“Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t you defending belief in the paranormal despite the lack of evidence?”

I’m not. I defend considering the topic and looking into it. Maybe you wanna take it upon you though to find a quote where I defended belief in the paranormal or anything without evidence ?

“It’s perfectly reasonable to dismiss a proposition with no evidence behind it…”

Sure, nothing wrong with that, but that’s not what he’s doing. He seems to dismiss the possiblity that in the future evidence might be found for that proposition. I’ve explained before in detail why he’s doing so, and why that is unreasonable. And noone can go and claim that the phenomenon was investigated in-depth – it’s always been a fringe area, to an extent where even, every once in a while, skeptic investigators have complained that “real” research isn’t being done. Way too premature to dismiss it.

“…especially when the idea is based entirely on myths and legends.”

Uhm, no. Present-day witness reports (whatever might be behind them) occuring on a regular basis are not equal to “myths and legends” – that’s just, plain and simple, false. I wonder why you’d want to make it look like that though.

“If you keep looking and nothing is ever found what can you conclude other then there’s nothing to find?”

Not in a universe this vast with no consensus in the scientific community on questions like the nature of consciousness and substance, or their relationship – or heck, not even on the nature of 96% of the universe. To suggest a stop for further investigation into areas that involve these questions (after all ghosts directly relate to consciousness and its properties) would be a little premature, to say the least. Unless you don’t really wanna find out certain things. “It’s us, being curious. That’s science.” – Phil Plait

And “keep looking” ? You mean because we have been looking so vigourously so far ? See above. What a two-faced statement. All over the place guys like you and Phil don’t do anything but spewing ridicule over these things, making it hard for any scientist genuinely interested in these phenomena – instead of in defending ideologies – to move these topics out of the fringe areas without getting their reputaion tarnished – yet here you go and make it look as if these things have been investigated on a mainstream scale by science ? Ridiculous. I tell you what – all you people and scientists who think these ideas so laughable that you’d rather have them go away, put a final nail in their coffin once and for all, if you feel so sure. Move them out of the fringes, start up some large scale studies, and do away with it all. What are you so afraid of ? To fail, because that would upset your small, comfortable universe ? Or to succeed, and then nothing left for you to scoff at to make yourselves feel better ?

“Then autism is supernatural???”

Do you think so ? I don’t. Do you think Dark Flow is supernatural ? Do you think “observable phenomena that are not yet satisfactorily accounted for by natural science” have to be “supernatural” ? What are you even trying to achieve by injecting this term into the discussion ? Would you care to define your usage of the term ? Explain why ghosts would be supernatural. As far as I know, physics doesn’t make any statements about consciousness that would be violated if ghosts exist.

“There’s no double standard.”

Yes there is. When you draw the parallel not between the kind of evidence available for the phenomena, but between their both not being readily quantifiable, they’re pretty much the same.

“You admit it yourself we have reason to believe the Big Bang happened because of hard data whereas for ghosts there’s nothing but drinking stories.”

Calling anecdotal evidence by people who experienced something they can’t explain, yet are not so afraid to be ridiculed by people like you that they would keep it from the rest of the world, “drinking stories” is resorting to unfair tactics – and doesn’t really come across very logical or scientific. Why do you feel the need to resort to this kind of tactic ? Surely if you’d feel your position was a safe one there’d be a more sophisticated and civilized way of argumenting, no ?

“Because they aren’t trying to find that evidence and when a story is debunked they respond like raving howler monkey and try to move the goal posts?”

A part of the people does, but there’s people genuinely interested in finding out the truth. No sane person would argue that. All SciFi fans are geeks ? All computer programmers are nerds ? All scientists are eggheads ? All fantasy fans are virgins ? Is that your simple view of the world ? If not, what’s your interest in making it look that simple ? Because if you claim (against your knowing better) all people interested in these things are nutjobs, you can more easily dismiss all of the people interested in the paranormal ?
And besides witnesses there’s scientists out there really investigating these things. Phil could just join them, instead of mocking the whole affair, if he’s really honest about his enthusiasm about evidence were it to be found.

“A piece of evidence doesn’t just give support to a position. It also discredits most, if not all, others. The more evidence the more certain a given position is and the weaker all opposing ones are.”

I know. Where are you going with this ? As Shane so aptly remarked, you can never prove a negative – so there never can be evidence for the position that ghosts don’t exist, and so the opposing position that they do can not be discredited by these means. As for no hard evidence for ghosts having been found yet, see my answer above to your question “If you keep looking and nothing is ever found what can you conclude other then there’s nothing to find?”.

a) Post your argument yet again, addressed to someone else,

b) Quietly fade away,

c) State something to the effect of “you people are too close-minded, I’m can’t have a real discussion about this incredibly important subject”, or

d) Actually present some evidence backing up your thesis.

My bets have been placed.

Online communication can wonderfully liberate the tender soul of some well-meaning personage who, for whatever reason, is physically uncharismatic. Unfortunately, online communication also fertilizes the eccentricities of hopeless cranks, who at last find themselves in firm possession of a wondrous soapbox that the Trilateral Commission and the Men In Black had previously denied them. [My emphasis.]