What is the best evidence for Poltergeists?

[PixyMisa]

Thanks Pixymesa but it is not just a "story" for people over the age of 13. It is Truth.

Evidence?

 

[PixyMisa]

From what I've read, there are a lot of parapsychological claims regarding apparitions, poltergeists and whatnot that simply haven't been addressed. One example off the top of my head comes from this book:

a poll showed that ghost experiences don't leave as much of a psychological impression as alien abductions, so they probably involve different psychological mechanisms.

A poll showed that one type of unsupported claim of impossible events has a different psychological profile of a different type of unsupported claim of impossible events is evidence of... What, exactly?

This stat has been used as evidence against the idea of ghosts being hypnagogic hallucinations- one of the most popular explanations of them. The thing is... I have not been able to find a critique of this stat. Was it published under the skeptics noses?

No, it's just crap.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why is it that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes them?

Begging the question.

I mean, when it comes to UFO's, Cryptzoid and psi, the skeptics know what they are talking about. There is an actual engagement with the "top tier" evidence. But what about ghosts and poltergeists?

What about ghosts and poltergeists?

When it comes to UFOs and cryptids, we have fuzzy photos to make fun of.

When it comes to psi, we have claims of repeatable effects that are not, in fact, repeatable.

When it comes to ghosts and poltergeists, we have.... Stories.

Where are the ghost skeptics who have read dozens and dozens of books on the topic, and concluded it was bull?

Why would you need to read dozens and dozens of books on the topic before concluding it is bull?

First, ghosts and poltergeists are not possible.

Second, there is no evidence.

Where are these skeptics? I mean, I know we cant expect a skeptic to read half as many books as a firm believer. This I am aware of. But doesn't the whole thing just seem... suspicious?

No, not at all. People believe in all kinds of nonsense.

I cant be the only one seeing this, can I?

Seeing what?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

From what I've read, there are a lot of parapsychological claims regarding apparitions, poltergeists and whatnot that simply haven't been addressed. One example off the top of my head comes from this book:

a poll showed that ghost experiences don't leave as much of a psychological impression as alien abductions, so they probably involve different psychological mechanisms.

This stat has been used as evidence against the idea of ghosts being hypnagogic hallucinations- one of the most popular explanations of them. The thing is... I have not been able to find a critique of this stat. Was it published under the skeptics noses?

I was sufficiently curious to follow your google books link and search for this quote. Can't find it. Google books only found two instances of the word 'poll' in the book and neither match that quote.

Trivially, it appears to me unsurprising if there are differences between experiences which people attribute to ghosts and experiences which they attribute to alien abduction, otherwise people probably wouldn't give them those different attributions. For one thing, only one of them involves a sense of having been abducted.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why is it that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes them? Isn't that suspicious?

It sounds as if you are defining 'informed' as meaning 'laps up every ghost story they can find'. In which case you have a self-selecting group of the 'informed' and no, that is not suspicious. That is exactly what you would expect to see if there were a modest number of enthusiastic believers in a phenomenon which was actually unevidenced nonsense.

I mean, when it comes to UFO's, Cryptzoid and psi, the skeptics know what they are talking about. There is an actual engagement with the "top tier" evidence. But what about ghosts and poltergeists? Where are the ghost skeptics who have read dozens and dozens of books on the topic, and concluded it was bull? Where are these skeptics? I mean, I know we cant expect a skeptic to read half as many books as a firm believer. This I am aware of. But doesn't the whole thing just seem... suspicious?

I cant be the only one seeing this, can I?

The difference is that the other topics you mention have some actual 'top tier' evidence which can be considered. Ghost stories are just stories. You can read them till the cows come home but nothing of value is added, just another stack of books full of stories.

So once again no, it is not suspicious.

 

[Mojo]

Why is it that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes them?

What are you basing this on?

Defining "people who are informed on ghosts and poltergeists" as being people who believe in them.

 

[Croydon Bob]

Of course, anybody who writes a science fiction novel is a fool. Obviously, like Colin Wilson, who has written over a hundred factual and non-factual books including numerous best-sellers and works of acknowledged literary merit. I'm wondering how many books you've managed to write and sell and contribution you've made to various fields of study.


No you're not, you're pretending to know something about a subject of which you are entirely ignorant. Yet again.

Projection much? You clearly know nothing about Colin Wilson, a clueless hack woo merchant. I haven't read any of his books for many years now, and I've only read some of the paranormal stuff, he has apparently written poor books on other subjects. But everything I have read has been badly written and full of fantasy. Lets put it this way: He's not as plausible as Von Daniken. One of his books (I forget the title) wibbles on about how our pets are psychic; From Atlantis to the Sphinx is a re-hash of other people's ancient-civilisation-built-the-pyramids garbage. Perhaps you could cite a Wilson that you've read that you would recommend?

 

[Croydon Bob]

Why is it that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes them? Isn't that suspicious? I mean, when it comes to UFO's, Cryptzoid and psi, the skeptics know what they are talking about. There is an actual engagement with the "top tier" evidence. But what about ghosts and poltergeists? Where are the ghost skeptics who have read dozens and dozens of books on the topic, and concluded it was bull? Where are these skeptics? I mean, I know we cant expect a skeptic to read half as many books as a firm believer. This I am aware of. But doesn't the whole thing just seem... suspicious?

You've already mentioned Richard Wiseman, Chris French and others in previous posts. Now you are lying that "everyone" who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes in them.

Ghost skeptics who have read dozens and dozens of books on the topic, and concluded it was bull? Hello! Lots of us. Many skeptics started as believers and it was only by reading all the believer literature that we became skeptics.

You want poltergeists to exist, you don't want informed skeptics to exist, and you are twisting everything to match.

I cant be the only one seeing this, can I?

I don't know what you are seeing, but the way that you have contradicted yourself throughout this thread makes me doubt that it matters much.

 

[Stray Cat]

I cant be the only one seeing this, can I?

By your own admission you have not read much on Poltergeists. What you see may be coloured by what you've read.
I've read a fair amount and looked into several cases over the years and yet I don't consider myself any sort of expert in them having not committed any of the detailed information to memory (unlike UFO cases and crop circle reports which I am much more familiar with.

Many people who are active debunkers of ghosts were once active ghost hunters who eventually realised that they were chasing wild geese (in the same way I became a UFO debunker).

As a starting point, if you want to find out any critical analysis of poltergeists, ghosts or for that matter anything, simply Google [whatever story name] and the word 'debunked'. Usually someone has already done the critical analysis. Then fully read both the original account (and any supporting documentation, then the critical analysis of that account and using logic and reasoning see which one carries most weight.

 

[pakeha]

^
Good advice, Stray Cat!

On Poltergeist. I claim to be no expert. My claims are not admissable (from what I have read on the application) i experience the "Spirit World" Anumber of different ways. 1) Clairvoyant. Can read peoples minds, anwer Questions before they are asked. 2)Objects moving. 3) # Injuries from being pushed. 4) Hearing voices for 9 years. 5) Being "touched/poked/prodded", by "Spirits". 6) Have Dr.s to submit what I have experienced. P.S. Tried to download application to speak of these things and could not download. HHHmmnn??? Poltergeist or Talking story?? (P.P.S. ...Truth!!!)

Welcome to the forum, windsshadow.
What's your take on poltergeists?

 

[Resume]

Why is it that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes them? Isn't that suspicious?

This assertion is suspicious; the more informed I became about such matters, the less I believed.

You may think you're not a believer, but you seem to trend towards credulity.

 

[Lusikka]

Skepticism, in philosophical terms, is scientific skepticism which relies primarily on inductive reasoning. The idea is to follow the evidence wherever it points you and provisionally accept or reject any premise based on an analysis of all the evidence. That's not what you're doing. For one reason or another, you've settled on an extremely unparsimonious hypothesis and are casting about for support for it.

Yes, this is a laudable principle. Very well if it only would be followed in practice. The practice you have here:

Well, I'm not going to read that book. Of course, you could just present the evidence.

This is the way skeptics most often do. If you then give a synopsis of the book, they will say:

"That is not evidence. The book is written by a kook, and you have believed it naively. You have absolutely no evidence." There will almost never be a reasonable discussion about the details.

 

[Resume]

This is the way skeptics most often do. If you then give a synopsis of the book, they will say:

"That is not evidence. The book is written by a kook, and you have believed it naively. You have absolutely no evidence." There will almost never be a reasonable discussion about the details.

You should name that straw. Perhaps . . . Dave.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is the way skeptics most often do. If you then give a synopsis of the book, they will say:

"That is not evidence. The book is written by a kook, and you have believed it naively. You have absolutely no evidence." There will almost never be a reasonable discussion about the details.

Some examples, please.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why is it that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes them?

This is called a loaded question. It makes a tacit assumption (that everyone who is informed on ghosts and poltergeists believes in them). So answering the "why?" requires accepting that assumption.

However, that assumption is false.

Plenty of skeptics are very well informed on claims of ghosts and poltergeists. Many skeptics are also very well informed on the flaws in the methodology of believer ghost/poltergeist investigators (while those investigators themselves are either unaware of those flaws or willing to overlook them for whatever reason).

[ETA: For example, a local paranormal group that does ghost and poltergeist investigations has published their distorted version of the scientific method, and it's fraught with fundamental errors, including a fundamental misunderstanding of hypothesis testing. They go in for in a big way the idea that "unexplained" means "evidence of a supernatural explanation"--something called an argument from ignorance. They also misuse measuring technology: EMF meters, thermometers, audio recorders, etc.--primarily by misunderstanding the limits of resolution such that they're making a big deal out of fluctuations that are essentially normal noise. And their "methodology" mostly consists of creating an excited atmosphere, which can be great fun, just as telling ghost stories can be fun--then taking absolutely anything or nothing as evidence of ghosts or poltergeists. By nothing, I mean such things as "a feeling of dread"--things with no operational definition whatsoever, and nothing that was ever part of an hypothesis.]

I recommend especially the books and articles by Joe Nickell, though there are many others.

Your loaded question seems typical of the approach of believers or muddled-thinkers to many claims. That is, looking for an explanation for something before determining whether or not there is something in need of explanation. (See for example conjectures about the Bermuda Triangle "phenomenon". Few people looking for explanations, even naturalistic explanations, realize that there is simply no Bermuda Triangle phenomenon in need of explanation.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is the way skeptics most often do. If you then give a synopsis of the book, they will say:

"That is not evidence. The book is written by a kook, and you have believed it naively. You have absolutely no evidence." There will almost never be a reasonable discussion about the details.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when you find yourself inventing fake quotes and putting those words into the mouth of your opponent, it's a pretty good sign that you're arguing against a straw man.

 

[pakeha]

...This is the way skeptics most often do. If you then give a synopsis of the book, they will say:

"That is not evidence. The book is written by a kook, and you have believed it naively. You have absolutely no evidence." There will almost never be a reasonable discussion about the details.

Hi, Lusikka.
Yeah, internet forums are like that, aren't they?
People want links to on-line articles, not references to books.
It seems to be the only way we can be sure we're talking about the same thing.

 

[Lusikka]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when you find yourself inventing fake quotes and putting those words into the mouth of your opponent, it's a pretty good sign that you're arguing against a straw man.

Yes, you are right about the quotes. It was only a synopsis of many discussions I have had. But that does not mean I was wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

"That is not evidence. The book is written by a kook, and you have believed it naively. You have absolutely no evidence." There will almost never be a reasonable discussion about the details.

There certainly won't be such a discussion when there are no details to be discussed.

All we have are stories, which are, as we have noted, at best a starting point for discovering evidence.

To put it another way: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, you are right about the quotes. It was only a synopsis of many discussions I have had. But that does not mean I was wrong.

It means you're arguing with a straw man. Your "synopsis" is not something anyone here said, but you are asking us to defend it by introducing it to this discussion. That's the epitome of the straw man fallacy.

ETA: I'm not sure what you mean by your claim that it doesn't mean you're wrong. You have successfully refuted a strawman. You won your argument with that non-existent guy. You are wrong if you think that strawman represents skeptics in this forum (or even skeptics generally). If *that* is your position, you have done nothing to support it. Your fictional quote is not evidence that skeptics dismiss believer books without analyzing them or responding to specifics. Indeed, I can prove you are wrong quite simply: in many of Randi's articles and books, he employs a technique where he more or less "converses" with the person he is refuting by providing extensive actual quotes of what that person said, and replying as if he were speaking to the person in real time.