Paranormal Activity

[herthab]

I saw it in a dream, you doing stuff tautologically. Prove I didn't

I can't. You may be right, I have an open mind on the subject.

[yeo]

When I was 16 I worked part time in an Electronics place and there was a woman there who said she spoke to spirits,she never made a big thing out of it or made any money out it or anything she just occaisionly said things to people that were a bit odd.My family went away leaving teenage me at home for a week and like most 16 year old left home alone I was making full use of my Dads Porn collection . When I went into work weird lady knew id been wanking all weekend,though I cant quite remember how she brought the subject up,I remember it freaking me right out.Maybe it was my greasy palms or haggered washed out look.I hope that is the case because the alternative is that spirits have nothing better to do than watch me crack one off  and if that is the case id have thought the Spirits that would be most interested in me would be my dead family members.. Ive not wanked since,you never know when your dead Nan might be watching.

[Ginginho]

Hahaha, brilliant!

[Ginginho]

20 pages of mostly shite.

Talk Talk could've just summed up his stance in three words and left the thread alone.
"I'm an empiricist".

[normy]

Spiritism

In 1870 Crookes decided that science had a duty to study preternatural phenomena associated with Spiritism (Crookes 1870). Judging from family letters, Crookes had already developed a favorable view of Spiritism by 1869 (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 232 – 233). In this he was possibly influenced by the untimely death of his young brother Philip in 1867 at age 21 from yellow fever contracted while on an expedition to lay a telegraph cable from Cuba to Florida (Crookes 1868). Nevertheless, he was determined to conduct his inquiry impartially and described the conditions he imposed on mediums as follows: "It must be at my own house, and my own selection of friends and spectators, under my own conditions, and I may do whatever I like as regards apparatus" (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 177). Among the mediums he studied were Kate Fox, Florence Cook, and Daniel Dunglas Home (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 230-251). Among the phenomena he witnessed were movement of bodies at a distance, rappings, changes in the weights of bodies, levitation, appearance of luminous objects, appearance of phantom figures, appearance of writing without human agency, and circumstances which "point to the agency of an outside intelligence" (Crookes 1874).

To find support and assistance for his research, he joined the Society for Psychical Research.

His report on this research in 1874, concluded that these phenomena could not be explained as conjuring, and that further research would be useful. Crookes was not alone in his views. Fellow scientists who came to believe in Spiritualism included Alfred Russel Wallace, Oliver Joseph Lodge, Lord Rayleigh, and William James (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 62). Nevertheless, most scientists were convinced that Spiritism was fraudulent, and Crookes' final report so outraged the scientific establishment "that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society." Crookes then became much more cautious and didn't discuss his views publicly until 1898, when he felt his position was secure. From that time until his death in 1919, letters and interviews show that Crookes was a believer in Spiritism (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 169 – 170, 249 – 251).

[STFCBird]

Dr ciaran o yeo brilliant!

[BANGKOK RED]

Spiritism

In 1870 Crookes decided that science had a duty to study preternatural phenomena associated with Spiritism (Crookes 1870). Judging from family letters, Crookes had already developed a favorable view of Spiritism by 1869 (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 232 – 233). In this he was possibly influenced by the untimely death of his young brother Philip in 1867 at age 21 from yellow fever contracted while on an expedition to lay a telegraph cable from Cuba to Florida (Crookes 1868). Nevertheless, he was determined to conduct his inquiry impartially and described the conditions he imposed on mediums as follows: "It must be at my own house, and my own selection of friends and spectators, under my own conditions, and I may do whatever I like as regards apparatus" (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 177). Among the mediums he studied were Kate Fox, Florence Cook, and Daniel Dunglas Home (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 230-251). Among the phenomena he witnessed were movement of bodies at a distance, rappings, changes in the weights of bodies, levitation, appearance of luminous objects, appearance of phantom figures, appearance of writing without human agency, and circumstances which "point to the agency of an outside intelligence" (Crookes 1874).

To find support and assistance for his research, he joined the Society for Psychical Research.

His report on this research in 1874, concluded that these phenomena could not be explained as conjuring, and that further research would be useful. Crookes was not alone in his views. Fellow scientists who came to believe in Spiritualism included Alfred Russel Wallace, Oliver Joseph Lodge, Lord Rayleigh, and William James (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 62). Nevertheless, most scientists were convinced that Spiritism was fraudulent, and Crookes' final report so outraged the scientific establishment "that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society." Crookes then became much more cautious and didn't discuss his views publicly until 1898, when he felt his position was secure. From that time until his death in 1919, letters and interviews show that Crookes was a believer in Spiritism (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 169 – 170, 249 – 251).

...and.

[normy]

...and.

Well I believe that Crookes accurately and honestly reported his investigations, and they at least "proved" to himself scientifically that the paranormal was a reality. Survival of death, and the truth of Spiritualism, are separate matters to be considered. Each apparent paranormal activity has to be examined on it's merits. I only go on what evidence I experience or read, it is a matter of personal judgement.

A friend of mine is a developing physical medium. She has her own website, where she shares her experiences and will answer any questions. She suggested I post the link here for anyone interested, whether you think it is all bollocks and a waste of time, or would like to explore intelligently what has happened to take her in that direction.

physicalmediumship.forumotion.com/index.htm

[BANGKOK RED]

I only go on what evidence I experience or read, it is a matter of personal judgement.

What evidence?

you just posted something that Crookes and some other blokes said, their opinion with no evidecne to back it up.

You are trying to use a persons opinion as evidence. Jog on!

[normy]

I'm not sure what you mean. Crookes has  described in detail the conditions and protocol for the experiments, with controls. That was not opinion, it was what he saw and experienced, therefore evidence. You can research it for yourself. If you don't believe his account of his evidence that is up to you. That is an opinion. My opinion is that it was valid evidence. Yours obviously not. What do you consider valid evidence? 
For your view to be valid, I would have throw all my books away which described personal evidence of paranormal by those who actually did it, and I would have to deny and lie about my personal paranormal experiences. I am not prepared to do that, because I trust my own judgement about truth and falsehood.

[pauld]

I read a book once about a rabbit who dressed in a little jacket and shoes and made Farmer McGregor very angry when he ate his radishes. He got his come-uppance though as Farmer McGregor chased him off and he left his little jacket on a fence, so he had to go to bed with no supper. So don't anyone tell me animals don't wear clothes or I'd have to throw all my Beatrix Potter books out and I'm not prepared to do that

[BANGKOK RED]

That was not opinion, it was what he saw and experienced, therefore evidence.

It was his opinion that what he saw was paranormal activity, with no evidence to back up his theory.

Evidence is numbers, facts, calculations, physical evidence, something that can be tested. Somebody saying something is not evidence, it is heresay.

He proved nothing. He didn't even prove anything to himself, he just convinced himself by fuelling his fantasies based on selective data. I think that you need to check up on the definition of proof because you seemed a little confused and more than a bit gullible.

What you are doing is believing in something purely because somebody has written it down in a book, sound familiar?

[normy]

Not very funny pauld, but each to his own.  

Never mind, my opinion is that I will see two good teams this evening,  the crowd will be witnessing the evidence, and they will all have different opinions about the evidence, and wil react to the evidence with emotion, or lack of emotion.
Hope there's a good atmosphere tonight and they play like they did Saturday. Fantastic in my opinion.  

[normy]

It was his opinion that what he saw was paranormal activity, with no evidence to back up his theory.

Evidence is numbers, facts, calculations, physical evidence, something that can be tested. Somebody saying something is not evidence, it is heresay.

He proved nothing. He didn't even prove anything to himself, he just convinced himself by fuelling his fantasies based on selective data. I think that you need to check up on the definition of proof because you seemed a little confused and more than a bit gullible.



What you are doing is believing in something purely because somebody has written it down in a book, sound familiar?

I think you are incorrect about what evidence is. It is all that is testified to be true  by witnesses of that truth. A Law Court uses witness statements as evidence.
The evidence in all cases has to be examined as to it's truth.

As for proof,it is not as simple as you make out. My dictionary says, " Facts, evidence, argument, etc, establishing or helping to establish a fact".  Or a "  demonstartion or act of proving". Or wevidence, documentation, facts, data, testimony, substantiation " . I could go on.

This kind of approach was done by Crookes and I don't see why you don't accept his evidence.
There is no reason not to, except if he was a liar. If so, why don't you say so?  It is quite clear that he was sure  of his facts and their interpretation.

That's my opinion anyway, you are welcome to yours, you might be right for all I know.

[BANGKOK RED]

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?