Ghosts and paranormal activity in ED & PR

[Burbage]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have. I don't think you have though.

At the risk of gatecrashing someone else's bun-fight, I'd like to add my own humble handbag to the debate. For there is a middle way.

The thing with abnormal activity (to give it its proper name) is there never is any unambiguous or verifiable evidence to support any conclusions. And thus no conclusions. If there was, it wouldn't be abnormal. And so, in the absence of testable evidence, your can either pin it on the spirit world and have the little folk for scapegoats, or ascribe it (with equally little evidence) to gin or the vapours. Logically, we'd just say we don't know. But what is logical is not always convenient. And what is logical to us is not necessarily logical to others.

We shouldn't forget, after all, that the tools of logical reasoning, including scepticism and even science, are cultural artefacts in themselves, theoretically undermined by incompleteness theorems and practically stymied by the uncertainty (or otherwise) between anti-, non- and realism itself. Different cultures have developed different ways of handling these deficiencies, so what might get a traditionally British sceptic hollering for an exorcist would be met by their Gallic equivalent with a shrug. But, as near as makes no difference, everybody is wrong about everything, just not always in the same way. And no, I can't be sure about that, but only in the same way as you can't be sure what exactly you mean by 'sure'.

Thus, although the abnormal has, so far, been only used to replace an explanation that's inconvenient, embarrassing or expensive, that doesn't necessarily make it not normal from a sceptical viewpoint. This is, sort-of, what Sheldrake is about with his dog-bothering experiments (and, somewhat paradoxically, what his critics rely on). And that's also why it's not entirely true to think of practitioners as quacks or fraudsters.

Sure, they prey on the vulnerable, but who doesn't? The doctor, who profits from our sickness? The humble bookseller who flogs self-help to the helpless? The lawyer, who makes divorce and dying the most undignified of pastimes, and charges heftily for the privilege? Take that noblest of professionals, the undertaker, whose whole career is a pantomime acted out ostensibly for the sake of the one person who's beyond caring. But we go along with that because funerals are for the vulnerable living, rather than the dead and, being vulnerable, we'll happily pay through the nose for one last, futile chance of appearing to be less mean to them. The spiritualists are doing exactly the same thing. And, compared with advertisers, insurers, bankers, politicians, policepersons, estate-agents, journalists, non-executive directors, consultants, project managers, opinion-formers, television cooks and the burgeoning bureaucratic incompetocracy, they seem a lot more honest about it.

So, although it's hokum, it's hokum with a purpose, and thus deserves a place in all our hearts, along with Satan, Santa and the Easter Bunny's Magic Basket. At least until we're in a position to test it properly. Which, in case you missed your own point, we're not.

[Jeremy]

To be honest I have no problem with spiritualists either. If people are convinced that there are ghosts in their house, then they can probably also satisfy themselves that the ghostbusters have caught the blighters. Fine.

At the end of the day, if there was anything to all this garbage... anything at all... there would be some plausible evidence. But there is none.

[El Pibe]

It seems we might be genetically predisposed to a spiritual bent. Those myths we feel in our bones to be true helped cement tribal and pan tribal bonding, facilitating cooperation, trade, intermingling, communication.

Also our brains are pass masters at fuzzy logic, taking in a paucity of information and filling in the gaps. We do it with facial recognition, conversing in noisy environments, reading, vision.

Memory is not some reading off hard-drive but ever-shifting currents of mis-direction, self-deception, degrading the things that dont suit our sense of self, the universe, creating memories out of old photos, stories that are told and altered in the retelling.

In short we're hard wired to exaggerate the minutiae for survival instinct, helping us to find hidden caches of grubs, avoid being eaten, bond with a mate.

Given that our most hazardous hunting experience is likely to be the midday crush at Sainsbury's on Sunday, our fiercest predator Velocepido Pavementus, our tribal oral tradition consigned to Eastenders, then our marvellous brains are bound to come up with weird conclusions to the vagaries, the idiosyncracies, the brownian motion of existence, of the modern world; a cold spot here, an unnaccustomed shadow or unexpected noise there.

So we fill in the gaps, we tell ourselves stories that satisfy our cravings, we lean to the mysterious over the banal.

It's why armed police are called out to stuffed toys, why we still flock to the haunted houses (i know I love them), retell our modern myths that Bob Holness played the saxaphone on Baker Street.

Shaman, I went through a patch of waking dreams/sleep paralysis about 15 years ago, shortly after a good friend had died, he sat at the end of my bed and talked to me about his death and after life, it was an incredibly vivid and profound experience that was both comforting and disturbing, hell, pretty terrifying, at the time. Other times my (still living) mum came and stroked my hair. I never told anyone about them, questioning my sanity, though they stopped soon after (i was properly burning the candle at both ends and was really stressed about my future at the time).

I read about sleep paralysis a couple of years later with a great sense of relief, i reckon it probably accounts for most visitation type experiences. A fleeting one could easily explain a quick hallucination in a bathtub.

[Sue]

So - who is going to tell the University of Edinburgh that their Unit of Parapsychology is completely wasting its time and money on employing lecturers to teach and research a load of hokum and garbage?

http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/research.html

ETA:

An extract from the website:

"The history of belief in psychic phenomena shows that one cannot simply dismiss such beliefs on the basis of gullibility and wishful thinking (Lamont, 2006). Rather, they were shaped not only by cultural stereotypes (Lamont & Bates, 2007) but also by an absence of alternative explanations (Lamont, 2004b). Similarly, the experimental investigation of such phenomena cannot simply be dismissed as ?pseudo-scientific?."

But hey, I'm sure you people so sure of yourselves on here are far more knowledgeable on the subject than academics who have studied it :))

[Louisa]

Sue, what astounds me about the human race, is this certainly they claim to have regarding what is fact and what is myth. We are simply not advanced enough to know everything about the universe. So it's fine to say, look all current science dismisses this and until evidence appears I will keep an open mind. What's not fine is for someone to be absolutely certain about something they just do not understand or even keep an open mind just incase something proves them otherwise. I know what I've experienced, and I still keep an open mind to alternative possibilities. Some people are just too damn sure of themselves.

Louisa.

[Jeremy]

Sue, I think you're getting confused between the study of paranormal beliefs, and study of paranormal phenomenon.

[El Pibe]

I may be quibbling over semantics here Louisa but a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true."

Therefore a fact is verifiable, everything else is unverifiable, be it theory, conjecture, myth, legend or outright lie.

That's not some human arrogance of universal understanding, just the natural human urge to classify and quantify.

It's why we do have departments like the one Sue highlights, because science isn't some closed shop trying to limit human understanding; that's called religion ;)

[El Pibe]

anyway, doubtless loungebound soon.......

[miga]

.

[fabfor]

Well! Don't know how I managed to miss this thread on a subject so close to my heart.

All sides of the argument might find this very interesting:

Enjoy!

[El Pibe]

touch? miga, pedantry chickens home to roost :)

[david_carnell]

fabfor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well! Don't know how I managed to miss this thread

> on a subject so close to my heart.

> All sides of the argument might find this very

> interesting:

>

>

>

> Enjoy!

Fascinating that Sheldrake is still being touted as a creditable source of info.

His ideas on morphic resonance are widely discredited and the man counts Deepak Chopra as a fan. With friends like these...

[????]

The Observer gave that particular Charlatan the What I Know feature yesterday....I was hoping it would just be a blank page :)

[Ted Max]

Very few "local ghostly activities" these days.

All the local ghosts cashed in and moved to Orpington, North Devon and the Costa Blanca.

[fabfor]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fabfor Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Well! Don't know how I managed to miss this

> thread

> > on a subject so close to my heart.

> > All sides of the argument might find this very

> > interesting:

> >

> >

> >

> > Enjoy!

>

> Fascinating that Sheldrake is still being touted

> as a creditable source of info.

>

> His ideas on morphic resonance are widely

> discredited and the man counts Deepak Chopra as a

> fan. With friends like these...

Wikipedia: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]

Oh dear! I sincerely hope you're not a fundamentalist. I find his arguments well- reasoned, evidenced and worthy of sober consideration. Fair enough if you don't agree but to launch such a vitriolic attack on the person is ... unreasonable?

[fabfor]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Observer gave that particular Charlatan the

> What I Know feature yesterday....I was hoping it

> would just be a blank page :)

Can't find it online. Did the article denigrate the "charlatan"?

[El Pibe]

I doubt it, the 'what i know..' is always written by the guest contributor.

[Ted Max]

Chopra "This Much I Know" 2014.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/04/deepak-chopra-this-much-i-know

"Quite a lot of people think I'm a charlatan and a quack, but I know I'm not."

Chopra "This Much I Know" 2008.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/17/healthandwellbeing.familyandrelationships

"I have experienced levitation. It's totally effortless; you're surprised."

[fabfor]

Thanks Ted Max. So it's about Chopra, not Sheldrake. A different kettle of fish altogether.

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue, I think you're getting confused between the

> study of paranormal beliefs, and study of

> paranormal phenomenon.

xxxxx

If you look at the website I linked to, they study both in Edinburgh. For example, there is somebody researching precognitive dreams, and John Beloff (R.I.P.) used to do research into ESP.

The quote itself referred to a study of paranormal beliefs but made reference to the fact that some of those arose from the fact that certain phenomena could not otherwise be explained.

[Jeremy]

Yes I did look at it.. I still think you're confusing the pychology of paranormal beliefs, with study of actual paranormal phenomenon. They're not starting from a baseline of assuming these things are real, or even trying to prove that they are.

And even if a bunch of academics were open minded about ghosts and ghouls, why does that mean I should also be? After all, plenty of people study theology at University.. and even homeopathy...

[StraferJack]

That Edinburgh dept?

Good luck to em but please do post when they actually achieve ANYTHING

[Sue]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That Edinburgh dept?

>

> Good luck to em but please do post when they

> actually achieve ANYTHING

xxxxxx

So the people who have been researching for years but have not yet found a cure for certain diseases (eg some cancers) should just be mocked and told not to bother because they haven't yet "achieved" anything?

Some people's thinking on here is just muddled. And I'm pretty sure it's not mine (when I'm sober, anyway :)) )

[Sue]

Jeremy Wrote:

>

> And even if a bunch of academics were open minded

> about ghosts and ghouls, why does that mean I

> should also be? After all, plenty of people study

> theology at University.. and even homeopathy...

xxxxxx

I guess you'd have been a flat-earther then .....

[Louisa]

Well I've seen and experienced things I don't care what anyone else says.

Louisa.