Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[cj.23]

But it clearly is not neutral. Saying poltergeists exist certainly implies an outcome, don't you think?

Nope. Poltergeists is a label for a certain type of experience. It no more implies any ontological status for any proposed explanation than saying "UFO's exist". People see lights in the sky. That is unproblematic. People see ghosts that is unproblematic. People see the Loch Ness Monster. That si unproblematic.

I don't believe Nessie is a pleisiosaur, but I do think the "Loch Ness Mosnter" is an interesting phenomenon worthy of investigation.

cj x

 

[GeeMack]

I don't need to create an argument for the existence of poltergeists.

Yes you do.

Unless you are trying to rredefine them into existence.

That's exactly what he's doing. He just flat out admitted it in this post in another thread. It's the same kind of dishonest nonsense we see ufology pulling in the UFO threads... poltergeists ( rapping sounds ). It's the same dishonest tactic yrreg, DOC, and edge try in the religion threads.

 

[zooterkin]

But it clearly is not neutral. Saying poltergeists exist certainly implies an outcome, don't you think?

Not if you redefine 'poltergeist' to mean something different from what everyone else means when they use the word.

 

[cj.23]

That's exactly what he's doing. He just flat out admitted it in this post in another thread. It's the same kind of dishonest nonsense we see ufology pulling in the UFO threads... poltergeists ( rapping sounds ). It's the same dishonest tactic yrreg, DOC, and edge try in the religion threads.

GeeMack I have asked you to demonstrate this with evidence in another thread. Your claim of tactics may help you feel better about your woeful ignorance of the subject, but it is not going to stop people realising your claims are utter nonsense. Now please demonstrate where I have made this admission you claim, or run along and bother someone else, there's a good chap?

cj x

 

[Resume]

Nope. Poltergeists is a label for a certain type of experience. It no more implies any ontological status for any proposed explanation than saying "UFO's exist". People see lights in the sky. That is unproblematic. People see ghosts that is unproblematic. People see the Loch Ness Monster. That si unproblematic.

I don't believe Nessie is a pleisiosaur, but I do think the "Loch Ness Mosnter" is an interesting phenomenon worthy of investigation.

cj x

In common parlance when one says ghosts exist, it means Casper exists; I think you're being deliberately obtuse now. Saying for example your hypothesis investigates the phenomenon surrounding people claiming to experience poltergeists is much more precise, though a bit verbose.

 

[cj.23]

Not if you redefine 'poltergeist' to mean something different from what everyone else means when they use the word.

Yes, which is precisely what I am not doing. And again, we see this remarkable attempt top avoid addressing for example the Enfield stuff i posted, with a claim I am doing something duplicitous. I find this all rather amusing. You bayed for evidence to be presented, I post links, people ignore them and accuse me of something I am clearly not doing.

Look at Joe Nickell's paper. How do I and he vary in our usage of poltergeist? Incidentally, I refer you to Woffitt on use of language in the social construction of accounts of the paranormal above. You should read the pdf. You may well find it enlightening.

I am really amused by all this now!
cj x

 

[zooterkin]

Nope. Poltergeists is a label for a certain type of experience. It no more implies any ontological status for any proposed explanation than saying "UFO's exist". People see lights in the sky. That is unproblematic.

Because that term explicitly means (and I'm surprised I need to spell this out) Unidentified Flying Object.

People see ghosts that is unproblematic. People see the Loch Ness Monster. That si unproblematic.

You are mistaken. If someone believes they have seen a ghost, but it's possible to work out what they actually did see, then we no longer say they saw a ghost. Because they didn't. The same with the Loch Ness monster.

I don't believe Nessie is a pleisiosaur, but I do think the "Loch Ness Mosnter" is an interesting phenomenon worthy of investigation.

You're being sloppy with your terminology. Since by now you must know it's going to cause confusion and opposition, I wonder why you persist with it.

 

[cj.23]

In common parlance when one says ghosts exist, it means Casper exists; I think you're being deliberately obtuse now. Saying for example your hypothesis investigates the phenomenon surrounding people claiming to experience poltergeists is much more precise, though a bit verbose.

So when Joe Nickell describes himself as a ghost hunter, he means he believes in Caspar? And really, if you think I am using naive definitions of terms, would not the fact I have repeatedly defined them suggest otherwise? I'm an academic specialist in this area -- so my use of language is likely to be exceedingly precise. I accept the term "ghost" is problematic though, you have a fair point. I should probably refer to "ghost experiences" - but you are holding me to a higher standard than you would Nickell, Randi, Wiseman, French, etc, etc.

cj x

cj x

 

[zooterkin]

Look at Joe Nickell's paper. How do I and he vary in our usage of poltergeist?

I suggest you re-read it yourself. He seems to be very careful in the way he uses the word, especially in the use of quotation marks when discussing the causes.

 

[cj.23]

The problem with using quote marks is it is not value neutral; there is an inference in it, at least according to the broadcasting guidelines from my days in TV. Anyway, apart from waiting for GeeMack to show where I have said exactly what poltergeists are other than a class of phenomena, shall we move on to the actual evidence? I think everyone understands how I use the term by now?

cj x

 

[Resume]

So when Joe Nickell describes himself as a ghost hunter, he means he believes in Caspar? And really, if you think I am using naive definitions of terms, would not the fact I have repeatedly defined them suggest otherwise? I'm an academic specialist in this area -- so my use of language is likely to be exceedingly precise. I accept the term "ghost" is problematic though, you have a fair point. I should probably refer to "ghost experiences" - but you are holding me to a higher standard than you would Nickell, Randi, Wiseman, French, etc, etc.

cj x

cj x

I think that Nickell would likely refer to himself as a paranormal investigator for the audience here; for the mass market, ghost hunter seems more profitable though, and if you asked him one on one, I'd bet he'd find the term ghosts extremely loaded. Probably poltergeists as well.

And yes, I appreciate you're an academic; how could I not as you keep telling me so?

 

[zooterkin]

So when Joe Nickell describes himself as a ghost hunter, he means he believes in Caspar?

No, because we know what ghosts are, whether they exist or not. Does he claim to have found any?

 

[Resume]

I am really amused by all this now!
cj x

You are not the only one.

 

[cj.23]

No, because we know what ghosts are, whether they exist or not. Does he claim to have found any?

No idea. He recently travelled to Lake Windermere and Loch Ness in search of lake monsters with my friend Hayley Stevens, who says he is a lovely chap, and I guess I shall call him a "cryptozoologist" now.

Anyway we are getting nowhere fast, trapped in a quagmire of people arguing about my definition. I have defined my terms, so how about some addressing the evidence? Or if we must debate language and social construction of discourse about the paranormal, then have a look at Wooffitt first so we can have an informed discussion? It's only a couple of hundred pages as I recall, and fairly easy to understand. I will pop out for an hour to let people read through it then we can move on?

cj x

 

[zooterkin]

No idea. He recently travelled to Lake Windermere and Loch Ness in search of lake monsters with my friend Hayley Stevens, who says he is a lovely chap, and I guess I shall call him a "cryptozoologist" now.

I know, I was in the bar with them at QEDCon when they were about to set off. My point was that you can hunt for things, even if they don't exist.

Anyway we are getting nowhere fast, trapped in a quagmire of people arguing about my definition. I have defined my terms, so how about some addressing the evidence? Or if we must debate language and social construction of discourse about the paranormal, then have a look at Wooffitt first so we can have an informed discussion? It's only a couple of hundred pages as I recall, and fairly easy to understand. I will pop out for an hour to let people read through it then we can move on?

What do you think this is evidence of? Unless you have evidence of a poltergeist, in the generally accepted meaning of the term, I'm not sure what we're supposed to be discussing.

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack I have asked you to demonstrate this with evidence in another thread. Your claim of tactics may help you feel better about your woeful ignorance of the subject, but it is not going to stop people realising your claims are utter nonsense. Now please demonstrate where I have made this admission you claim, or run along and bother someone else, there's a good chap?

Your condescension in lieu of an honest, substantive argument is noted. Consider this helpful advice: Your continued whining about failing is not a good strategy for success.

You're being sloppy with your terminology. Since by now you must know it's going to cause confusion and opposition, I wonder why you persist with it.

It could be that sloppy terminology, attempts to confuse, and dishonesty is all he's got.

Anyway we are getting nowhere fast, trapped in a quagmire of people arguing about my definition.

Stop attempting to redefine commonly understood terms and you won't continue to fail on that account.

I have defined my terms, [...]

Yes, you want to change the meanings of words in a way that makes your claim true. Do notice you've been busted at it over and over again. Perhaps you'd like to try another strategy. So far using your current strategy you've failed.

[...] so how about some addressing the evidence?

If you ever offer any objective evidence for your claims, it will be addressed.

 

[cj.23]

I know, I was in the bar with them at QEDCon when they were about to set off. My point was that you can hunt for things, even if they don't exist.

Yes: we agree completely here. I think we are talking at cross purposes. I'm also annoyed i never got the opportunity ot meet you - I gave the ticket Hayley gave me to a disabled friend

cj x

 

[Daylightstar]

Er, how do you come to this conclusion? Here is the Abstract, with the important parts in reference to this highlighted... ...

Because that's exactly what the abstract suggests. Since I can only go by the abstract, could you explain why you imply that their research is in fact about poltergeists?
It is of course possible that the abstract doesn't cover the research properly, since you clearly indicate to be familiar with that research, you could shed some light on it.

...
I'd say I'm hoping it replicates, because otherwise the model I also put forward in '96, that attention and the construction of a narrative from mundane incidents explain how poltergeists are socially constructed is wrong, or at least lacking in experimental evidence to support it. As a model it still does not explain a great deal when it comes to poltergeist events ...

I'm still sensing that you really hope to falsify your own model of which you speak. In other words, that poltergeists are ghostly naughties.

... Hence I think Houran and Langes research was brilliant - it was a clever idea, well conducted, that showed an interesting possibility. ...

In spite of your use of the word "hence", you have still not made clear why Houran's and Lange's research was so brilliant. Since I can only go by the abstract, it's still entirely unclear.

Could you explain exactly why their research was brilliant and a clever idea?
The abstract isn't helpful in that regard.

... Chance alone could explain the fit....

Do you mean by the fit, where a perceptual process where initial observations "infect" later ones?
If so, if the sample size is larger (as you say are doing), do you suppose that then the likelihood of a fit by chance is smaller? And what if there is no fit? Ghost?

...
I don't need to create an argument for the existence of poltergeists. Poltergeists occur, and are well documented phenomena. ...x

The claims regarding poltergeists exist. Poltergeists, the claimed entities that throw stuff around are, well, just claims.

...The question is what underlies at a causal level the phenomena - misperception, fraud, invisible goblins, etc, etc. I don't think anyone doubts poltergeist cases exist as events and are reported do they?

The question is, whether you are inclined towards a mundane or a non mundane explanation for the anecdotes (reported events) concerning so called poltergeists, which most certainly exist (the anecdotes).

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I don't believe Nessie is a pleisiosaur, but I do think the "Loch Ness Mosnter" is an interesting phenomenon worthy of investigation.

cj x

What is worthy of investigation, the claimed existence of the 'Loch Ness Monster' itself, or the behavior of people surrounding the claims of seeing a monster in the lake?

 

[Stray Cat]

ON point 1. The paper attempts to experimentally analyse how narratives of hauntings and poltergeists can arise. I think it can be useful in some, but not all cases. A "haunting" is here I suspect defined technically, which may confuse - it means something like "a case where the same apparitional figure has been repeatedly reported by witnesses with no former knowledge of the previous experiences" -- or what Erlenddur I believe refers to as a locale based case.

haunt[hawnt, hahnt; for 10 also hant] Show IPA
verb (used with object) 1. to visit habitually or appear to frequently as a spirit or ghost: to haunt a house; to haunt a person.

Source

No, there's nothing confusing about it unless you're claiming it means something different than the link above.

What you constantly ignore is that unverifiable stories about hauntings are not the same as hauntings.

Point 2. Huge amounts of work have been done on this, but by fat the best is Dr. Robin Wooffitt, (1992) Telling Tales of the Unexpected: the Organisation of Factual Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 217. ISBN: Pb: 0-7450-1052-0; Hb: 0-7450-1051-2
You can download the pdf here - http://www.york.ac.uk/media/sociology/documents/staff-papers/Telling Tales.pdf If you quickly read through it you will learn a great deal about how Conversation Analysis has been employed to investigate the factual discourse in so called paranormal episodes, and what we have learned in that area. I'd recommend this highly.

Yes, sure I'll be quickly reading all 249 pages of that (not).
And then I'll then no doubt be able to find out that people can subjectively guess if someone's telling porkies or not... maybe sometimes they can note that the storyteller didn't sneeze while telling their similar to someone else's story or even use a lie detector... I think you can even get them for the iPhone now.

Point 3. If you have an issue with the methodology of the study I suggest you take it up with the authors, Dr Richard Wiseman or the editors of The Skeptical Inquirer who have by Wisenamn's article popularised the study asdid his book Paranormality, as being part of an sceptical explanatory framework. I have no such issues given that the ontological status of the events is actually irrelevant to the experimental premise.

Yes sure... I'd say "irrelevant" is an accurate word.
But if all you're testing for is the premise that if you put people in a spooky situation they will feel more spooked... why go round all the (haunted) houses to state the bleedin' obvious?

You don't seem to be reading what I am saying.

No, I'm reading it, I just think you wish for too much wriggle room and even if your research and results actually show nothing of paranormality, the language you use will allow the results to be used in silly attempts to show that even sceptics have found evidence of this that and the other.

Yes we can investigate "alien abduction" just as we can investigate poltergeists.

Correct ... sort of. We can investigate claims of alien abduction just as we can investigate claims of poltergeists. To date investigations of both these types of claims have not once actually found an alien abducting or a poltergeist chucking plates around or rapping on tables.

Yes I accept fully there is an "alien abduction experience". I don't happen to think little grey men are involved, but the use of the label is hardly problematic? I can't see how but somehow you are failing to understand what I am typing here...

I fully accept that people claim what they may perceive to be a "poltergeist experience"... ten times out of ten it is discovered to not be a poltergeist, unless you are trying to rredefine poltergeist to mean anything claimed to be poltergeisty regardless of if it is or not, which makes a mockery of language which from a self proclaimed academic is beyond the pale to say the least.

Right. Exactly. You are the one seemingly insisting that poltergeists as a category involve some paranormal entity.

They do as their dictionary definition clearly states.

I'm actually very open minded on what they involve.

Yes, me too, my mind is open to any objective evidence.

Like the UFO reports, you can study the class of phenomena and seeks explanations. I happen to be a Magonian psycho-social hypothesis favouring person when it comes to the UFO phenomena - I rather think they are socially constructed, and the actually experiences need to be investigated to explain the seed phenomena for any given experience, but the experience is cultutally mediated, as all experiences are. You seem to get it here.



And Poltergeists are a label for a certain class of phenomena, just as UFO's are for another.

No... Poltergeist is the label given to a particular thing. A UFO is a label given to a not particular thing, if subsequent information allows it to be shown to be a particular thing, it is no longer a UFO.

Both are interesting examples of anomalous experience,

No, there is nothing anomalous about seeing something in the sky that you can not identify.

and I attempt to understand the underlying causality, but my conclusions as to causes must be strictly evidence led.

I have a rather informed perspective on these things. If you wish to argue specifics, I will happily do so. You seem to be questioning my ideological stance: it is one of honest doubt open minded inquiry and evidence led reasoning. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't see what is honest about saying 'poltergeists exist as long as you accept my definition of poltergeist as being anything reported to be remotely poltergeisty'.

In that case, using the same logic, God, Aliens, Unicorns, Dragons, Telepathy, Remote Viewing and a host of other nonsense things also exist and language becomes useless.