Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[cj.23]

Straycat, it's only 249 pages. Is that really beyond the patience of people these days? It is actually really interesting as well.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

I should explain the good Prof's book is not on poltergeists etc. It is on the social construction of everyday langauge about the paranormal, but the topic is fairly irrelevant - you can learn the basiscs of Conversation Analysis from it. It's probably about 80,0000 words, same length as most PhD theses I read, but it it is really useful. A good knowledge of Discourse Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Grounded Theory, Ethnomethodology and Thematic Analysis is just as useful as a good knowledge of stats and SPSS in today's world when it come to critiquing claims. Given your enthusiasm for discussion of how terms are employed I thought (genuinely, no snarkiness intended) you might enjoy it.

It is a bit heavy going in places, but what isn't? Certainly no worse than reading my posts.

Anyway what do you think I should define "poltergeist" as?

And as to Houran and Langes use of "haunting", yes as I said they are using it in a technical parapsychological sense not the popular one. Given they are sceptical parapsychologists surely this does not surprise?

cj x

 

[Daylightstar]

Straycat, it's only 249 pages. Is that really beyond the patience of people these days? It is actually really interesting as well.

cj x

The conclusion of chapter 2 ("On the analysis of factual accounts") is a funny one.
It boils down to talk about talk (anecdotes) concerning the examination of accounts of paranormal experiences with respect to the way the factual status of those accounts is claimed to be achieved by the talk (anecdotes) alone.

Not factual data concerning the paranormal experience .... just the talk abut it.

 

[cj.23]

The conclusion of chapter 2 ("On the analysis of factual accounts") is a funny one.
It boils down to talk about talk (anecdotes) concerning the examination of accounts of paranormal experiences with respect to the way the factual status of those accounts is claimed to be achieved by the talk (anecdotes) alone.

Not factual data concerning the paranormal experience .... just the talk abut it.

Yep. That's what it is about. Language sturctures. I had to point this out once before when one of Wooffitt's papers was mentioned on this forum as debunking Ganzfeld. Nope, he is completely uninterested in the objective reality of the phenomena. He is interested in how we organise talk about them. Now this sounds incredibly pointless, but actually when you get to something like his analysis of the discourse used by psychics and mediums, suddenly it is of immense importance. Hang on, I'll go find that paper. It's way shorter, and actually really useful for sceptics to read.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Wooffitt, R (2008) 'Observations on trouble management in psychic practitioner - sitter interaction' European Journal of Parapsychology 23(1): 60-89.

http://ejp.wyrdwise.com/EJP v23-1.pdf

This is shorter, and while nothing to do with Stray Cat's original point that made me mention Wooffitt, I think it will be of far more utility to people here. Have a look! I was really impressed by this paper

cj x

 

[Daylightstar]

Yep. That's what it is about. Language sturctures. ...

No, it's about assigning factual status to anecdotes about paranormal experiences without any factual data concerning the paranormal experience.
A paranormal believer's paradise.

 

[Daylightstar]

Wooffitt, R (2008) 'Observations on trouble management in psychic practitioner - sitter interaction' European Journal of Parapsychology 23(1): 60-89.

http://ejp.wyrdwise.com/EJP v23-1.pdf

This is shorter, and while nothing to do with Stray Cat's original point that made me mention Wooffitt, I think it will be of far more utility to people here. Have a look! I was really impressed by this paper

cj x

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Could you be a little more persuasive please? Thank you so much.

 

[carlitos]

This is admittedly from the other thread, but if cj could please clarify:

....

4. I personally believe that poltergeist phenomena are complex, and have differing underlying causes, but that many cases display aspects that are currently outside of our scientific knowledge. Yet I have never witnessed a prolonged high quality poltergeist case first hand. In a moment i will present some if you like, as i have an hour free.

...

I never claimed they were evidence of the supernatural; in fact I claim exactly the opposite, they are not (see above). If they were there would be absolutely no point in investigating them for the reasons given above regarding the limits of science - they would contravene methodological naturalism. The very fact parapsychologists study poltergeists is because they believe they are not contraventions of natural law, but lawful phenomena occurring within the frameworks of physics etc.

Outside our scientific knowledge, but within the framework of physics? What?

 

[cj.23]

Hey Carlitos.

Yep. I think we may not understand the mechanisms, but I don't think we need to rewrite physics to incorporate any events. In other words if objects really do move, I expect they will follow laws of physics, and probably ones we already understand.

cj x

 

[Resume]

Hey Carlitos.

Yep. I think we may not understand the mechanisms, but I don't think we need to rewrite physics to incorporate any events. In other words if objects really do move, I expect they will follow laws of physics, and probably ones we already understand.cj x

Oh I'd agree with that.

 

[Stray Cat]

Straycat, it's only 249 pages. Is that really beyond the patience of people these days? It is actually really interesting as well.

cj x

Not beyond my patience... beyond my attention span, especially when I suspect it's going to be some convoluted over academic waffle that can reach no objective conclusion... and if Daylight Star is correct, it looks like I was wise not to invest my time.

Is this the "Collective apparitions: evidence for life after death" thread or the let's talk about people talking about stories people tell thread?

 

[Stray Cat]

Given your enthusiasm for discussion of how terms are employed I thought (genuinely, no snarkiness intended) you might enjoy it.

It is a bit heavy going in places, but what isn't?

The dictionary... I find it uniquely informative for determining the correct way to employ terms.

Anyway what do you think I should define "poltergeist" as?

You may or may not have noticed that I regularly include a link to the dictionary definition of poltergeist. But that's not what you're asking is it.
I think you should define a poltergeist as a poltergeist. For it to be defined as a poltergeist it should meet the criteria of it's definition (for it's definition click the link in the word poltergeist.

If it doesn't meet those criteria, it shouldn't be called a poltergeist.

So really your question should have been; What should one call unidentified rapping on a table [or insert other claimed phenomena often related to claims of poltergeist activity]?
The answer to this is; Unless you can show it meets the criteria for being labelled a poltergeist, don't call it that. Find what criteria it does meet in terms of definition and call it that.

And as to Houran and Langes use of "haunting", yes as I said they are using it in a technical parapsychological sense not the popular one. Given they are sceptical parapsychologists surely this does not surprise?

Language means nothing to these people?

If there aren't any ghosts or spirits present, it isn't technically a haunting.

 

[Daylightstar]

... and if Daylight Star is correct, it looks like I was wise not to invest my time. ...

The subtitle of "Telling tales of the unexpected" by Robin Wooffitt might as well have been: "A paranormal investigator's manual for constructing belief by means of language, when faced with anecdotes lacking evidence".