Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[vmf214]

Is the lack of interaction simply because apparitional research is a joke? Is it so thoughorly discredited a field that it is no longer respectable to even utter its name or supporters? That bigfoot is mentioned more often than them? If so, when did this discreditation happen?

I think it is not so much that it is a joke. It is a "fear" within a certain academic community to say the word "paranormal" for fear that it is a slippery slope to an inescapable place of tabloid purgatory.

The particular paper I'm referring to was done by sociologists - who have less fear of being marginalized because in many respects they already are? Also, with respect to ghosts and UFO's, there is no real credible scientific discipline to offset the "popular" one directly. Mainstream psychology and neuroscience really does not play in the same sandbox as parapsychology. Bigfoot? Well, there is a legitimate place for undiscovered species and new forms are discovered every day.

The popular "ghost hunters" use self-defined methodologies that tend to be tautological and/or ludicrously subjective. EMF meters, et al? Modern divining rods... They never adopted or even attempted to adopt the scientific method.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think it is not so much that it is a joke. It is a "fear" within a certain academic community to say the word "paranormal" for fear that it is a slippery slope to an inescapable place of tabloid purgatory.

Which, of course, it is.

 

[Andyman409]

In a few threads on this board, I've posted my own personal "ghost story"...which would have been one of these collective apparitions if I'd been a bit less brave/curious.

Ah, here it was:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-188619.html
or
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=781947 for a non-archive version.

I like this story because it points out that just because we can't think up a plausible explanation for one of these things, that's more likely to be a failure of our imagination rather than an indication of an otherworldly precense

I read the story and found it quite insightful. thx

 

[Andyman409]

From my further reading of the data, more interesting patterns appeared:

Firstly, about half of the time one sees an apparition of a person they know, it is of a person that is not actually in any danger. This alone seems to undermine the idea that ghosts are the spirits of the deseased.

Secondly, at least according to Tyrrell, these experiences do not involve physical phenomena. Surely if apparitions were spirits, they could knock stuff over, right?

Thirdly, I was wrong about one of my earlier claims. It turns out that there is no such statistic on how ghost experiences affect percepients differently than alien encounters. The person who said it was merey relaying their informed opinion, not a survey result.

Lastly, researchers used controls to remove cases in which the subject was most likely tired, since hypnagogic hallucinations could then be used to explain them. However, according to Wiseman, this would mean that they ruled out the majority of apparitions. Only 1% involved full figures, and most of that 1% occurred at night, at bedsides, strongly suggesting they are the result of hypnagogic hallucinations. This seems to suggest that the sample they were using is unrepresentative of the whole phenomenon.

This variable also seems to make sense out of the "collective apparitions". There are two common explanations for apparitions: illusion or hypnagogic hallucination. If we remove hypnagogic hallucinations, than illusions remain. And illusions can be seen by many people quite easily. This would help explain why 8%-12% of the experiences are apparantly collective. Of course, one could sift through every report, and look for cases that dont appear to be illusions. But nothing like that was done in what I've read. The article itself seems to consider collective apparitions poor evidence, and focuses on supposed poltergeists to pick up the evidential slack.

 

[GeeMack]

From my further reading of the data, more interesting patterns appeared:

Firstly, about half of the time one sees an apparition of a person they know, it is of a person that is not actually in any danger. This alone seems to undermine the idea that ghosts are the spirits of the deseased.

Ghosts are? You must realize your continued presumption that ghosts exist is laughable, considering your pretense of being skeptical about it.

Secondly, at least according to Tyrrell, these experiences do not involve physical phenomena. Surely if apparitions were spirits, they could knock stuff over, right?

Yes, Surely. Since you seem to know the physical characteristics of apparitions, spirits, ghosts, and poltergeists, why is it you've been unwilling to offer any objective evidence that they even exist?

Thirdly, I was wrong about one of my earlier claims.

Just one?

It turns out that there is no such statistic on how ghost experiences affect percepients differently than alien encounters. The person who said it was merey relaying their informed opinion, not a survey result.

Lastly, researchers used controls to remove cases in which the subject was most likely tired, since hypnagogic hallucinations could then be used to explain them. However, according to Wiseman, this would mean that they ruled out the majority of apparitions. Only 1% involved full figures, and most of that 1% occurred at night, at bedsides, strongly suggesting they are the result of hypnagogic hallucinations. This seems to suggest that the sample they were using is unrepresentative of the whole phenomenon.

This variable also seems to make sense out of the "collective apparitions". There are two common explanations for apparitions: illusion or hypnagogic hallucination. If we remove hypnagogic hallucinations, than illusions remain. And illusions can be seen by many people quite easily. This would help explain why 8%-12% of the experiences are apparantly collective. Of course, one could sift through every report, and look for cases that dont appear to be illusions. But nothing like that was done in what I've read. The article itself seems to consider collective apparitions poor evidence, and focuses on supposed poltergeists to pick up the evidential slack.

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you believe poltergeists are real. How about being honest with us and tell us how you think poltergeists pick up the evidential slack when there isn't a mote of objective evidence to support your notion that they even exist.

 

[Resume]

The article itself seems to consider collective apparitions poor evidence, and focuses on supposed poltergeists to pick up the evidential slack.

So do these poltergeists hide the evidential slack after they pick it up?

 

[Andyman409]

Ghosts are? You must realize your continued presumption that ghosts exist is laughable, considering your pretense of being skeptical about it.

Yes, Surely. Since you seem to know the physical characteristics of apparitions, spirits, ghosts, and poltergeists, why is it you've been unwilling to offer any objective evidence that they even exist?

Just one?

Yes, you've made it abundantly clear that you believe poltergeists are real. How about being honest with us and tell us how you think poltergeists pick up the evidential slack when there isn't a mote of objective evidence to support your notion that they even exist.

why are you accusing me of believing in ghosts and poltergiests? Why must one be a believer to take interest? Surely you wouldn't call Wiseman or French "believers" simply for taking interest. How they are any different than me in that regard?

When I say ghosts, I am referring to a collection of symptoms, such as a visual or auditory or tactile perception (s), not to some psychic phenomenon or disembodied soul. The symptoms are all that is of interest. We appeal to hallucinations, illusions, lies, memory, etc. to account for these symptoms. Paranormalists try to rule out all possible naturalistic explainations, in order to plug in some sort of woo hypothesis. This is typical of psuedoscience.

 

[Andyman409]

I'm trying to find an article... It was about the statistical basis of "shared experiences" and how they randomly "walk" toward a corroberative base that shares "popular cultural characteristics", i.e. in the 19th century certain commonly misidentified phenomena were called "angels". In the 17th century that identical phenomena may have been called "witches on broomsticks." Today it might be a UFO. And "believers" tout similarities as strength supporting the group claims, while in fact it is because all of the individuals live in a culture that has experienced "Close Encounters", "X-Files", etc...

When I find it I will post it. The article is popular with defense attorneys in calling group eyewitness testimony into question.

Great thread!

Found that article yet? I was really looking foward to reading it. Not sure if you forgot about us or couldn't find it.

thanks, and best

 

[Daylightstar]

... Surely if apparitions were spirits, they could knock stuff over, right?. ...

Hi Andyman409, could you clearify whether you really meant your above quoted statement or whether you were applying humor?

 

[Andyman409]

Hi Andyman409, could you clearify whether you really meant your above quoted statement or whether you were applying humor?

It was an admitedly poor attempt at a Reductio ad absurdum. My point was that, if disembodied spirits were real, and appeared to people, they should leave a physical mark. However, if the experiences that we call ghosts are hallucinations, they would leave no such trace. The evidence appears to favors the latter (hallucination).

Sorry for the confusion

 

[GeeMack]

It was an admitedly poor attempt at a Reductio ad absurdum. My point was that, if disembodied spirits were real, and appeared to people, they should leave a physical mark.

Other than you feel you know the characteristics of those things you claim to not believe in, why on Earth would you draw such a silly conclusion? What physical mark does the steam from dry ice make?

However, if the experiences that we call ghosts are hallucinations, they would leave no such trace. The evidence appears to favors the latter (hallucination).

You still seem to be having trouble with the concept of burden of proof and whose responsibility it is. But okay, leaving aside your persistent wrongness on that point, what evidence would favor the explanation being hallucinations, and why have you neglected to consider so many other possibilities?

 

[Andyman409]

Other than you feel you know the characteristics of those things you claim to not believe in, why on Earth would you draw such a silly conclusion? What physical mark does the steam from dry ice make?

You still seem to be having trouble with the concept of burden of proof and whose responsibility it is. But okay, leaving aside your persistent wrongness on that point, what evidence would favor the explanation being hallucinations, and why have you neglected to consider so many other possibilities?

Well, they could also be illusions, hoaxes, lies, delusions, false memories, temporal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, or even the product environmental factors. I'm sure there are thousands of possibilities I missed.

 

[Andyman409]

Page 109 of this book is the closest thing I've seen to a skeptic attacking these

 

[pipelineaudio]

assuming the OP isnt just trolling, what is it exactly you want skeptics to attack? You have presented absolutely nothing to attack.

I see page after page of people trying to reason with you, but at this point, you actually have to be making a deliberate effort to be this willfully ignorant about evidence and burden of proof

 

[Daylightstar]

Hi Andyman409, could you clearify whether you really meant your above quoted statement or whether you were applying humor?

It was an admitedly poor attempt at a Reductio ad absurdum. My point was that, if disembodied spirits were real, and appeared to people, they should leave a physical mark. However, if the experiences that we call ghosts are hallucinations, they would leave no such trace. The evidence appears to favors the latter (hallucination).

Sorry for the confusion

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
So, no humor intended. You actually meant what you said:

... Surely if apparitions were spirits, they could knock stuff over, right?. ...

Now, why and/or how would 'a spirit apparition' have to leave a physical mark?
And what kind of physical mark do you believe that would be, footprints? farts? a smell?

 

[PixyMisa]

Page 109 of this book is the closest thing I've seen to a skeptic attacking these

Every time we say "evidence?", that's a direct and deadly attack on all claims of the paranormal.

Because there ain't none.

 

[zooterkin]

Page 109 of this book is the closest thing I've seen to a skeptic attacking these

I can't see anything at that link.

Have you read Paranormality by Richard Wiseman (to name just one example)?

 

[Andyman409]

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
So, no humor intended. You actually meant what you said:


Now, why and/or how would 'a spirit apparition' have to leave a physical mark?
And what kind of physical mark do you believe that would be, footprints? farts? a smell?

I dont get your angle? Are you a believer or a skeptic? All I'm trying to say is that, if apparitions represent a viewer independant reality, they ought to be able to affect the environment around them. If "apparitions" are all subjective, non-veridical delusions, than they would not affect the world independant of the viewers mind. Since apparitions do not affect the world, they appear to be subjective.

 

[zooterkin]

I dont get your angle? Are you a believer or a skeptic? All I'm trying to say is that, if apparitions represent a viewer independant reality, they ought to be able to affect the environment around them. If "apparitions" are all subjective, non-veridical delusions, than they would not affect the world independant of the viewers mind. Since apparitions do not affect the world, they appear to be subjective.

Well, yes, that's what most of us have been saying. What do you think the requests for 'evidence' have been asking for?

ETA: But on the specific point, you said:

Secondly, at least according to Tyrrell, these experiences do not involve physical phenomena. Surely if apparitions were spirits, they could knock stuff over, right?

Rainbows are real, and you can take pictures of them, but they don't knock things over. Your question is just a non-sequitur.

 

[Daylightstar]

... if apparitions represent a viewer independant reality, they ought to be able to affect the environment around them. ...

It's now definitely clear that you believe that apparitions/spirits/ghosts if they exist, ought to/surely could/should, knock stuff over/leave a physical mark.
But why do you believe that without evidence to support that belief?