What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[Jack by the hedge]

It's all relative.

Typically an adolescent female relative.

 

[Croydon Bob]

It is enormously clear that you have never read an essay on the philosophy of miracles.

It is enormously clear that you are an amateur philosopher without any real understanding of the subject. Lots of philosophers are skeptics, some skeptics are philosophers (e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Baggini ). None of them would agree with what you are saying.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This whole thing has gone way off track. I just wanted to if anyone had read "the poltergeist", or any other prominent parapcyhological book (s) on poltergeists. I didn't like the idea of having to do an investigation from the ground up, like baron did, involving interviewing witnesses and whatnot. I am a busy guy, being a student and all. I wanted to see if anyone had already done stuff like that to save me time, and if I could see the results.

This just seems a little strange to me. It's like saying, "Hey, has anyone checked out that leprechan thing? I'm sure it's not real, but I don't have time to do any research."

I mean, some things are so transparently bogus that one wonders, why waste any time at all on it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'll create a new thread for every case I find worthy of debunking.

Are you expecting different answers?

 

[Resume]

Those were just examples. I'll create a new thread for every case I find worthy of debunking.

Why don't you start with one, the one you judge to be most worthy?

Keep in mind that a story is just a story and the more information the better.

 

[zooterkin]

Those were just examples. I'll create a new thread for every case I find worthy of debunking.

Why? Why not find evidence of any poltergeist and post it in this thread? (Not that I expect you'd be starting many new threads, anyway.)

 

[Foolmewunz]

Those were just examples. I'll create a new thread for every case I find worthy of debunking.

Cloaking device off.

That probably wouldn't be a great idea. The mods might frown on a series of threads about individual poltergeist incidents/claims. Threads can go on forever, so just list them in this thread. You've got an audience of people who are all ears and raring to chomp into them, so go for it.

Re-cloaking and setting course for the Gamma Quadrant.

 

[R.A.F.]

Yeah... except that they don't believe poltergeists or hauntings are paranormal...

In other words, they are different than "true believers"

If they are looking for mundane explanations, as opposed to supernatural explanations, then I would agree...however...

If these researchers consider themselves "poltergeist" researchers, then I seriously question their objectivity since there is no credible, testable evidence that poltergeists even exist.

Again....if you have such evidence, the please present that evidence now.

 

[I Ratant]

The crypto-zoo of things that go bump in the night is enormous.
Geists, polter or not are only one in this zoo of things that never were.

 

[De_Bunk]

What is the best evidence for poltergeists?

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

As Pixy posted above...

DB

 

[Andyman409]

If they are looking for mundane explanations, as opposed to supernatural explanations, then I would agree...however...

If these researchers consider themselves "poltergeist" researchers, then I seriously question their objectivity since there is no credible, testable evidence that poltergeists even exist.

The researchers I refer to do look for mundane, non paranormal explanations, like disassociative states and fraud.

Cloaking device off.

That probably wouldn't be a great idea. The mods might frown on a series of threads about individual poltergeist incidents/claims. Threads can go on forever, so just list them in this thread. You've got an audience of people who are all ears and raring to chomp into them, so go for it.

Re-cloaking and setting course for the Gamma Quadrant

Sorry. I'll try to keep all poltergeist related questions confined to this thread.

This just seems a little strange to me. It's like saying, "Hey, has anyone checked out that leprechan thing? I'm sure it's not real, but I don't have time to do any research."

I mean, some things are so transparently bogus that one wonders, why waste any time at all on it?

Poltergeists and afterlife research in general is a big topic. It's hard to do it justice by listing a single case, since its advocates often rely on sheer numbers to persuade. Right now, I am trying to get a grasp of what the "best cases" are, and what kinds of responses skeptics give. That's why I was kinda hoping to contact someone who had already done some research into the field, just to get some general impressions, tips and advice.

Fortunately, I see there are lots of useful threads here, like the one on the Rosenheim case. That was one that left me scratching my head.

Are you expecting different answers?

When I think about it, this is the crux of the matter. Yes, every case will have a slightly different explanation. No two are identical. In some cases, there's evidence suggesting fraud is the cause. In others, delusion. A lot of the phenomena is caused by environmental effects, too. For instance, bad plumbing or seismic activity may be a contributing factor. There is also the quality of the reports themselves. Did the

 

[IXP]

Thing 1 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
Thing 2 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
Thing 3 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
...
Thing 7954 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
Thing 7955 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.

Wow, look at all those things that might be zonglets! With so MANY of them, there must be some zonglets.

IXP

 

[Andyman409]

Thing 1 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
Thing 2 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
Thing 3 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
...
Thing 7954 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.
Thing 7955 might be a zonglet, we can't know for sure.

Wow, look at all those things that might be zonglets! With so MANY of them, there must be some zonglets.

IXP

LOL. C'mon, I specifically said I wasn't planning to research all of them, just a representative sample.

It is enormously clear that you are an amateur philosopher without any real understanding of the subject. Lots of philosophers are skeptics, some skeptics are philosophers (e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Baggini ). None of them would agree with what you are saying.

Hey, I already apologised for the rudeness! Anyways, I am more than aware of how skeptical the philosophical community is. Nearly 80% self identify as atheists. A great example of a skeptical philosopher would be Stephen Law, who wrote a book criticising the paranormal called "believing bullshi*", and publishes in the philosophy of religion. Other examples would be would be Graham Oppy, Keith Parsons and Jeff Lowder, who run the blog "The Secular Outpost", and have released many books through prometheus books. And they would probably agree with my epistemology.

 

[R.A.F.]

The researchers I refer to do look for mundane, non paranormal explanations, like disassociative states and fraud.

Do they refer to themselves as "poltergeist" researchers?

Poltergeists and afterlife research in general is a big topic.

Among rational people?, not really.

 

[baron]

Do they refer to themselves as "poltergeist" researchers?




Among rational people?, not really.

Were you once molested by a poltergeist or something? If you think people who take an interest in the phenomenon are irrational fools (like the world-renowned ignoramus Colin Wilson, for example) then why are you in this thread?

 

[R.A.F.]

Were you once molested by a poltergeist or something?

HEY....these are easy questions. If it only takes easy questions to cause you to respond in such a manner, then perhaps this board isn't the place for you.

In other words, the questions only get HARDER from here....

If you think people who take an interest in the phenomenon are irrational fools...

Boy...didn't take you long to attempt to put words in my mouth...I posted nothing like that, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that again.

Sorry to "shout", but I want to make sure there is no confusion about this.


Thing is....what phenomena? You make the assumption that there is something to investigate, yet you have presented ZERO evidence that this whole thing is anything other than peoples imaginations run wild.

 

[R.A.F.]

If you think people who take an interest in the phenomenon are irrational fools (like the world-renowned ignoramus Colin Wilson, for example)

Actually, good example...I agree with you that he is an irrational fool.


Here's a suggestion...you might want to find someone who isn't "known" for being a credulous believer in things regarded as "paranormal".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Poltergeists definatly make the most extraordinary claims of all paranoral phenomenon.

Nah. The most extraordinary claims have to be the religious ones. Creation of the world; end of the world, etc. They dwarf poltergeist claims.

<rant>What is it about the internet that make people misspell definitely?</rant>

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And with a poltergesit, there is a claim that a spoon flew through the air. The witness either percieved it perfectly, percieved it improperly, or did not percieve it at all AKA lied.

There's a logical problem here. If either the second or third cases are true, what is the referent of the pronoun it?

In other words, you seem to be assuming the existence of poltergeists in your argument.

Starting with that assumption can only lead to circular reasoning.

 

[Andyman409]

Actually, good example...I agree with you that he is an irrational fool.

Here's a suggestion...you might want to find someone who isn't "known" for being a credulous believer in things regarded as "paranormal".

Surely you've read "the believing brain" or something like it, so you know how easy it is for otherwise smart people to construe ridiculous beliefs.

And for the last time, this was supposed to be a general discussion- I never promised that I was going to present a specific piece of evidence. I will if I run into anything I cant wrap my head around.