Explore the Unexplained
Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!
Guest
Topic RSS
Offline
Those of you that have read my rambling posts before know that when it comes to the paranormal, I sit on the fence. I'm not really a skeptic or a believer. I try to stay objective although I do like to think there may be ghosts. I have heard the argument before that you cannot disprove what has not been proven. After reading endless debates between "Skeptics" and "Believers"( not about the argument of debunking in particular) , my wheels got turning. Can you debunk the paranormal?
Saying that we debunk the paranormal is insinuating that we know the rules of the game. We look to find natural causes to something that seems unexplainable. What if the paranormal doesn't always work beyond the normal? What if it sometimes mimics natural occurrences? We don't know the rules of the game with the paranormal world and until someone from the Otherside ( if there is an "Otherside") comes to give us a play by play of how it works we really have nothing to go on. We are working off of ideas and assumptions. How can we debunk something that we have no real evidence saying it a real occurrence? What are we looking for really? Do we even know? We have nothing to to give credibility in the way of debunking or proof. Seriously. Think about it.
Take pictures for example. Many of them are debunked because they have anomalies that can be reproduced. Is this really debunking them though? What are we looking for? Something paranormal could very well resemble an anomaly that we could explain. We don't have evidence that tells us how the paranormal works. We don't even know if we are going about it the right way really. We have been investigating for years and years yet we still have no proof of or against the paranormal. We have tings we think are paranormal in nature but does that mean it works outside of the known laws of the natural world? Everything has to abide by natural law. It's there, none of us can get around it even if we don't understand it.
EVP. We can get these voices that we don't know the origin of but is that " evidence"? Evidence of what? We don't know. I like to believe that it is paranormal in nature but I know it could very well be something else. I don't see any evidence of paranormal phenomena that won't come under fire but on the same note, we really don't have anything to compare it to. Do we have anything we can present and say 100% for sure is paranormal in nature? Nope. Do we have anything that shows how the paranormal really works so we have something to use as the bases for debunking? Nope. We only have theories. A theory is nothing more than an idea.
Whether a Skeptic or a Believer , it is hard to argue because the entire system of exploring the paranormal is like feeling around in the dark after a long night at the bar. You might think you are grabbing on to something good but when you turn on the light it is the double bagger from down the street. Because you were feeling around in the dark you put your own ideals into it but when the light comes on , it was a lot different than you had in mind. See what I mean? Until we have indisputable proof for or against the paranormal both arguments are flawed.
Of course we should keep testing theories. Eventually we will stumble up on the answer. At this point though, one has to wonder what all the arguing is for? Neither side can win. I am not saying abandon all your ideas or beliefs. That is what drives us to find answers to our questions. Just understand that argument presented is going to be flawed. It is really our opinions and ideas we are presenting and nothing more.
Offline
Those of you that have read my rambling posts before know that when it comes to the paranormal, I sit on the fence. I'm not really a skeptic or a believer. I try to stay objective although I do like to think there may be ghosts. I have heard the argument before that you cannot disprove what has not been proven. After reading endless debates between "Skeptics" and "Believers"( not about the argument of debunking in particular) , my wheels got turning. Can you debunk the paranormal?
Saying that we debunk the paranormal is insinuating that we know the rules of the game. We look to find natural causes to something that seems unexplainable. What if the paranormal doesn't always work beyond the normal? What if it sometimes mimics natural occurrences? We don't know the rules of the game with the paranormal world and until someone from the Otherside ( if there is an "Otherside") comes to give us a play by play of how it works we really have nothing to go on. We are working off of ideas and assumptions. How can we debunk something that we have no real evidence saying it a real occurrence? What are we looking for really? Do we even know? We have nothing to to give credibility in the way of debunking or proof. Seriously. Think about it.
Take pictures for example. Many of them are debunked because they have anomalies that can be reproduced. Is this really debunking them though? What are we looking for? Something paranormal could very well resemble an anomaly that we could explain. We don't have evidence that tells us how the paranormal works. We don't even know if we are going about it the right way really. We have been investigating for years and years yet we still have no proof of or against the paranormal. We have tings we think are paranormal in nature but does that mean it works outside of the known laws of the natural world? Everything has to abide by natural law. It's there, none of us can get around it even if we don't understand it.
EVP. We can get these voices that we don't know the origin of but is that " evidence"? Evidence of what? We don't know. I like to believe that it is paranormal in nature but I know it could very well be something else. I don't see any evidence of paranormal phenomena that won't come under fire but on the same note, we really don't have anything to compare it to. Do we have anything we can present and say 100% for sure is paranormal in nature? Nope. Do we have anything that shows how the paranormal really works so we have something to use as the bases for debunking? Nope. We only have theories. A theory is nothing more than an idea.
Whether a Skeptic or a Believer , it is hard to argue because the entire system of exploring the paranormal is like feeling around in the dark after a long night at the bar. You might think you are grabbing on to something good but when you turn on the light it is the double bagger from down the street. Because you were feeling around in the dark you put your own ideals into it but when the light comes on , it was a lot different than you had in mind. See what I mean? Until we have indisputable proof for or against the paranormal both arguments are flawed.
Of course we should keep testing theories. Eventually we will stumble up on the answer. At this point though, one has to wonder what all the arguing is for? Neither side can win. I am not saying abandon all your ideas or beliefs. That is what drives us to find answers to our questions. Just understand that argument presented is going to be flawed. It is really our opinions and ideas we are presenting and nothing more.
Welcome to Paranormal Underground!
Oh – and welcome to my world. Most of my blogs wind up being concluded with me just shrugging my shoulders. I am pretty agnostic about all things paranormal. Doesn't mean I don't love it and want to find out stuff. Just that I haven't really seen anything that convinces me 100% one way or another.
Glad you are with us. Hope you will share your thoughts often. We also have a Members' Blog, if you are ever so inclined. There are instructions for posting in the How To tab.
Offline
Nice post. For me when I'm trying to debunk stuff I'm only looking for possibilities to what we encounter. I am not looking to prove the existence of ghosts to the world, just the client and myself. I already believe in ghosts but I like to be reminded frequently. We must remember that the word paranormal encompasses much more than just ghosts or spirits. It's a term used to describe something "above" normal.
If we don't debunk things then we can't prove to people that we looked at a situation and said "Well, it isn't this because we tried that and that didn't look or sound like this." For example if a person reports hearing phantom footsteps in the hallway and a team can debunk it as loose floorboards that spring back up then it's not exactly paranormal. Could a ghost being walking down the hallway and not be making that sounds? We don't know for sure but we showed that it's a strong chance that it wasn't a ghost. For most home owners that is a better reason and it's a burden taken off their shoulders. Many don't want to live in a haunted house.
So in a shorter version, we debunk to show that not every little bump in the night is a ghost but something that is not to be afraid of. We're not ruling out 100% that a ghost spoke to a person in the middle of the night. Just saying that it's a good chance it's not paranormal.
A friend of mine, a skeptic (surprise) once suggested you can't disprove ghosts, just individual hauntings. The more you debunk, the closer you are to a provisional conclusion.
Offline
My questions would be: How can you debunk something that has not been quantified? Can you debunk activity that has been mistaken to be paranormal? Yes. If it cannot be debunked, is it paranormal? We cannot say, and we will NEVER be able to say scientifically until an attempt is made to define and quantify what constitutes true paranormal activity. Can it be defined and quantified? Possibly, if a proper scientific methodology is used in investigations to gather and accurately analyze data, and this cannot be done in one investigation. It will take many in order to establish a database to examine any correlations that may exist between the supposed activity and the proposed research question. This is only the beginning, as the process will be in depth and a long one, but by doing these things we can at least take a step onto the road that leads to the answer of the question: What is paranormal activity?
Offline
If you take what known in search of the unknown it still isn't an answer to the question posed. How can you analyze something when you don't really know how it works? What is there to know that you are drawing the right conclusion?
I used EVP as an example because we know it happens but we don't really know what it is. If it is stray signals we are picking up then can we really use it as evidence of paranormal events? Why do we call it evidence when we don't know it is ? My point with that was that we use it as evidence for proof of the paranormal when we don't really know if it is paranormal.We need to take a different look at what we consider " evidence". We really don't know if there is a paranormal world or how it works if it does exist. The reason we search for it is based on personal experience yet personal experience is discredited.
Personal experience is often explained away but medical explanations yet we keep searching. Does paranormal events mimic known disorders (events) or is medical disorders( natural events) really all it is? Does the paranormal experience go beyond the physical or is it a manifestation of ourselves? How would we know the difference?
We should keep exploring theories but all our evidence right now is circumstantial so to speak. We might think we know but really there isn't enough data to make the case for or against proof. Therefor we can make no real we conclusions ( outside the obvious). Pictures that something is seen in but people say it is matrixing and such. Is all of it really matrixing? What if one thinks they have an explanation and it really is something paranormal but mimics something we are familiar with? How does the paranormal work really?
Everyone keeps throwing around the word unknown. If paranormal events mimic something known to us you could investigate until you drop over. You won't find anything because that is not what you are looking for. Paranormal translates into "beyond normal". It is a term that can be used loosely. As in," My a** is paranormally big". ( That is an inside joke within my own bunch so ,nobody get offended) A person cannot cling to the definition of paranormal events when the paranormal cannot really be defined as we know nothing about it. If all ideals , theories, big words and personal beliefs are taken away what is left to say that something 100% is or is not paranormal in nature? Saying it is unknown is admitting that one really don't know what it is or how it works. So how can we say what is right or wrong? Because it is unknown. How do you define something so ambiguous?
My drunk in the dark bit was just a way of saying that looks can be deceiving and our ideals can be much different from reality. We can come up with a lot of ideas and make ourselves believe them. It doesn't make us right. We as human beings have a way of reading our own ideas and perceptions into things. It's just human nature.
Offline
If you take what known in search of the unknown it still isn't an answer to the question posed. How can you analyze something when you don't really know how it works? What is there to know that you are drawing the right conclusion?
I used EVP as an example because we know it happens but we don't really know what it is. If it is stray signals we are picking up then can we really use it as evidence of paranormal events? Why do we call it evidence when we don't know it is ? My point with that was that we use it as evidence for proof of the paranormal when we don't really know if it is paranormal.We need to take a different look at what we consider " evidence". We really don't know if there is a paranormal world or how it works if it does exist. The reason we search for it is based on personal experience yet personal experience is discredited.
Personal experience is often explained away but medical explanations yet we keep searching. Does paranormal events mimic known disorders (events) or is medical disorders( natural events) really all it is? Does the paranormal experience go beyond the physical or is it a manifestation of ourselves? How would we know the difference?
We should keep exploring theories but all our evidence right now is circumstantial so to speak. We might think we know but really there isn't enough data to make the case for or against proof. Therefor we can make no real we conclusions ( outside the obvious). Pictures that something is seen in but people say it is matrixing and such. Is all of it really matrixing? What if one thinks they have an explanation and it really is something paranormal but mimics something we are familiar with? How does the paranormal work really?
Everyone keeps throwing around the word unknown. If paranormal events mimic something known to us you could investigate until you drop over. You won't find anything because that is not what you are looking for. Paranormal translates into "beyond normal". It is a term that can be used loosely. As in," My a** is paranormally big". ( That is an inside joke within my own bunch so ,nobody get offended) A person cannot cling to the definition of paranormal events when the paranormal cannot really be defined as we know nothing about it. If all ideals , theories, big words and personal beliefs are taken away what is left to say that something 100% is or is not paranormal in nature? Saying it is unknown is admitting that one really don't know what it is or how it works. So how can we say what is right or wrong? Because it is unknown. How do you define something so ambiguous?
My drunk in the dark bit was just a way of saying that looks can be deceiving and our ideals can be much different from reality. We can come up with a lot of ideas and make ourselves believe them. It doesn't make us right. We as human beings have a way of reading our own ideas and perceptions into things. It's just human nature.
I agree – there is not a lot that is known. There are experiences – and to those people that have had them, it is often all of the proof that they need. But yes – I'd love to find a way to quantify what is happening. That is one of the things you see paranormal investigators attempting to do – they are trying things in order to find a starting point for quantification.
That is the purpose of our EVP experiment. Establishing a baseline so we can figure out what EVP is, why it happens, etc. Start with a baseline, make a hypothesis, test. It may take us a while, but we're looking for ways to quantify what is being experienced.
Until a testible definition of what constitutes a "ghost," the mechanics behind it proffered, one can't proceed with coherence. Thus the problem. Anecdotes are not evidence, and replication is the key to pursue the scientific method, the paradigm which allows our knowledge of the physical universe. To discount this, one must also discount the science-based technology that allows us to communicate in this fashion.
Offline
just had to say Thanks to Juice 007 Ninja-- very well put--( will not get into the butt joke ) point of view. You hit a few nails on the head (claps hands).
Offline
Can you debunk something that's never actually been proven?
Offline
Can you debunk something that's never actually been proven?
ooooo….good question!!!
Offline
Can you debunk something that's never actually been proven?
Depends on what it is. The theory of blackholes was never debunked and we are about 75% sure they exist. We can't photograph one since light is required and the blackhole swallows up light, the same thing happens with radio waves or anything we send to a location in space that we think a blackhole might exist.
Another theory that hasn't been debunked is the Big Bang theory. Yet, another is the theory of evolution. So there are things in this world or this universe that we haven't been able to debunk yet. We haven't advanced far enough in science in some of these fields to do that yet.
With regards to the paranormal, this is a very old field of science dating back a couple of centuries. Many would argue that it is a science, that it is actually a pseudoscience. While people have been investigating the paranormal for a while we haven't had much success in proving anything. I think we are still at square one, even with all this new fangled equipment we have.
We must keep treading on.
Offline
Until a testible definition of what constitutes a "ghost," the mechanics behind it proffered, one can't proceed with coherence. Thus the problem. Anecdotes are not evidence, and replication is the key to pursue the scientific method, the paradigm which allows our knowledge of the physical universe. To discount this, one must also discount the science-based technology that allows us to communicate in this fashion.
Thought that is true to prove a theory, and thus graduate it, that is not true of science over-all. There is much accepted science that are basically assumptions of assumptions that may come from an educated guess. Look at the field of Quantum Computing, Mechanics, and Physics. For math, which can be argued as a Science of Absolutes, one finds that a ten-based numbering system is broken and must be taped together with theories that won't actually ever be proven.
Scientists that are the forefathers of the Scientific Method and innovation for much of our civilization today had to remain open minded of possibilities.
I guess my point is, that you can't discount the paranormal – to include ghosts, just because of the lack of quantification.
Remember, the atom was theorized in the 1600's, but wasn't quantified until the very late 1800's and even then was still essentially just a theory until it was actually observed in the mid 1980's.
Most Users Ever Online: 151
Currently Online:
10 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
norcalmonkey: 24961
HeidiAnn67: 15116
wrightghost: 8521
duckie7694: 5868
movieman1500: 3314
milomilford: 2589
pooperdooper: 2049
sympathyforthedevil: 1912
BornAware: 1741
ediaz65: 1447
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 3
Members: 2941
Moderators: 3
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 47
Topics: 1885
Posts: 104918
Newest Members: GesyGlymn, eleshyendutle, olikhcqn, Johnsrudcraig@yahoo.com, Enverrera
Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427)
Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5526), sithy (1330)
Paranormal Forum - Paranormal Underground