seemingly unexplainable cases of the paranormal

[Andyman409]

I would not say so. Well actually I think the case for a link is stronger than many people in the parapsychological community do, but Stephen E Braude, D Scott Rogo, Andrew Green and the vast majority of academic parapsychologists who favour a "paranormal" explanation for poltergeists invoke "psi", and RSPK (Recurrent Spontaneous PsychoKinesis). The "dead guys" hypothesis has been deeply unfashionable since 1894 at least -- the reasons for it being primarily historical (and the subject of the book I should be writing right now, as I'm the recipient of a grant award to do so.) In short however in the period 1882-1894 the SPR became known as a super-sceptical "debunking" organisation, the Spiritualists leaving en masse in 1888 (some remained, but few) and the core SPR had no faith in "physical phenomena" at all - too many fake mediums had been busted by them. That changed a little after the Fielding Report in 1904 (which incidentally featured two magicians among the SPR investigating team; one of the convinced witnesses at Enfiield was also a Magic Circle member, and stage magicians have been involved with SPR investigations throughout its history - Carrington for example?) The classic article on the issue of poltergeists and the living versus discarnate agent debate is entitled "Poltergeists: Are they Living or are they Dead?" and waspublished in the JASPR in I think 1987 - it's by Prof. Ian Stephenson. I notice some issues of the Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research are available online as epub files for Kindle and KObo, soworth having a look, as the JASPR is not on Lexscien

I have far more faith in Enfield than South Shileds, but that is based upon a very limited discussion with two people, one pro, one opposed, on South Shields. I have not yet read Hallowell's book. Alan Murdie was very positive about the case; the skeptic (who I won't name till I have his permission) utterly unconvinced. Likewise at Enfiled there is a huge discrepancy between the two SPR groups who emerge with differing viewpoints. Now Maurice is no longer alive I think we might hear more critiques, I expected to, but so far none have emerged. I keep meaning to read what Tony Cornell has to say on the case. I know (from personal conversation) he was unconvinced by some aspects, but I don't think anyone from the SPR who visited the house more than once thought the whole case was bogus (I may be wrong). When I attended SPR Study Day 50 on poltergeists no one objected to GLP's description of events or raised serious critiques, but there appears to have been an SPR Report on the case (referenced in This House Is Haunted) that I have never seen and can not find.

On Rosenheim, I'm surprised you think it was faked. I have never seen anything to suggest that. I am afraid I don't know enough of the tragic Resch case to make a comment, but William Roll is still very much around and I expect has written on it somewhere.

Anyhow hope my vague musings not too far off topic!

cj x

Thanks for the comments. Perhaps my skepticism of cases like enfield come from my devotion to ECREE. My criteria is typically that, if 1% of the case can be doubted, the rest falls with it. Although to be fair, I am more interested in apparitions at the moment, so my poltergeist research is more for fun.

Also, where is this discussion on south shields. I dont even think wikipedia has an article on it yet.

BTW I'd prefer to keep all future discussions exclusively on my "collective apparitions" thread, since cycling thru these three is a pain in the neck.

 

[cj.23]

Thanks for the comments. Perhaps my skepticism of cases like enfield come from my devotion to ECREE. My criteria is typically that, if 1% of the case can be doubted, the rest falls with it. Although to be fair, I am more interested in apparitions at the moment, so my poltergeist research is more for fun.

Also, where is this discussion on south shields. I dont even think wikipedia has an article on it yet.

ECREE? Don't know term. The idea that if doubt could be thrown on one aspect of a case the whole case was binned was used by the 1880's SPR certainly - they rejected mediums who were found in fraud and refused to work further with them. In poltergeists the idea of "mixed cases" remains hugely controversial.

On South Shields I spoke to Alan Murdie who reported his visit to Newcastle and Hallowell at SPR Study Day 50; the conversation with the sceptic who also spoke with Hallowell about the case was in a Tesco coffee shop. I still need to talk to Hallowell myself about the case, but thought I'd read the book first so I could develop cogent questions. The website is pretty useless: it's just a flashy advertising blur devoid of evidential quality. I have seen a lot of the photographs though not published elsewhere at Alan's presentation. Likewise my thoughts on Enfield are largely shaped by discussions with Cornell, Grosse, Mary Rose Barrington and others who were there, and listening to GLP present on the case. I actually had read little beyond the JSPR paper Enfield Revisited and the Interview with a Poltergeist Channel 4 documentary until recently, as it has never interested me much.

I would strongly recommend getting to know the principle case investigators on any case if possible, and getting a feel for them as people, to assess how they worked, and to ask the questions not addressed in their reports. Joining the SPR ( www.spr.ac.uk ) allows you to do this in a very informal and useful way.

cj x

 

[Belz...]

Here is an interesting thread I found about a poltergeist case, involving items flying around and an apparition. Interestingly enough, it was written by a skeptic, who wanted to disavow his experiences, rather than reinforce them.

As well he should. If you experience something that defies the laws of physics, the odds are that your senses are deceiving you, not that the laws of physics are wrong.

 

[Stray Cat]

ECREE? Don't know term.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

 

[cj.23]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.

Ah yes! That actually derives from Marcel Truzzi, who took it oddly enough from JB Rhine, who insisted that the level for significance in parapsychological studies should be a magnitude higher than in normal psychology. Cheers Resume, I had never seen the acronym before.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

As well he should. If you experience something that defies the laws of physics, the odds are that your senses are deceiving you, not that the laws of physics are wrong.

Eppur si mouve! - attributed to Gallileo

j x

 

[GeeMack]

I would strongly recommend getting to know the principle case investigators on any case if possible, and getting a feel for them as people, to assess how they worked, and to ask the questions not addressed in their reports. Joining the SPR ( www.spr.ac.uk ) allows you to do this in a very informal and useful way.

... because when it comes to the paranormal and supernatural, objectivity and the scientific method get tossed right out the window in favor of clinging to belief in magic. Because, you know, when special pleading is all you've got, no matter how dishonest it is, go for it with gusto!

 

[cj.23]

... because when it comes to the paranormal and supernatural, objectivity and the scientific method get tossed right out the window in favor of clinging to belief in magic. Because, you know, when special pleading is all you've got, no matter how dishonest it is, go for it with gusto!

GeeMack, where is the special pleading here? Please explain! I'm suggesting that Andy might be better positioned to critically review the evidence if he spoke to the parties involved and their critics directly rather than relying on secondary sources like me: nothing more.

And I'm rather surprised if you think I'm going to throw objectivity and the scientific method out of the window. If you think I lack critical faculties fine, but give me specific examples to work on

cj x

 

[GeeMack]

GeeMack, where is the special pleading here? Please explain! I'm suggesting that Andy might be better positioned to critically review the evidence if he spoke to the parties involved and their critics directly rather than relying on secondary sources like me: nothing more.

Apparently neither you nor the parties involved are able to present their position objectively, as would be done if you were involved in real science instead of pretending. So the special pleading comes in where you suggest that failure on the part of the "investigators" might be resolved by getting to know them. Instead of trying to get into the heads of "researchers" who obviously aren't able to make their case in a cogent objective manner, what Andyman and you should be learning is how to apply the tools of objectivity, critical thinking, and the scientific method to your beliefs.

 

[Stray Cat]

GeeMack, where is the special pleading here? Please explain! I'm suggesting that Andy might be better positioned to critically review the evidence if he spoke to the parties involved and their critics directly rather than relying on secondary sources like me: nothing more.

I think the special pleading is in people's insistence that stories are evidence.
In no other branch of science would they be exclusively used.

I'm also at a loss to know why "getting to know the investigators" would help in any objective way. Unless those investigators actually had some objective evidence that they were keeping to themselves that they only showed to their friends.

 

[Garrette]

Apparently neither you nor the parties involved are able to present their position objectively, as would be done if you were involved in real science instead of pretending. So the special pleading comes in where you suggest that failure on the part of the "investigators" might be resolved by getting to know them. Instead of trying to get into the heads of "researchers" who obviously aren't able to make their case in a cogent objective manner, what Andyman and you should be learning is how to apply the tools of objectivity, critical thinking, and the scientific method to your beliefs.

I think you misread cj.23. He is not suggesting that failures can be resolved; he is suggesting that the OP can better address his questions by learning the strength, flaws, and biases of the pro-psi crowd.

Perhaps you have not dealt with cj much, but imho he deserves great respect for his knowledge and attempts to remain objective. He, of course, is imperfect in these attempts but no more so than most skeptics here who engage him.

 

[Stray Cat]

Perhaps you have not dealt with cj much, but imho he deserves great respect for his knowledge and attempts to remain objective. He, of course, is imperfect in these attempts but no more so than most skeptics here who engage him.

Of course respect to anyone who has a great deal of knowledge on a subject is acknowledged.
What is being pointed out is that having knowledge of a lot of stories leaps over the fact that there is no objective evidence that a single one of those stories is accurate or true. Therefore there is no objective conclusion to be reached from them.

 

[Cuddles]

I have a question...

So what do you do, if you experience something, and being a common sense logical kind of guy, you run through every possible normal/natural scenario you can think of, without even considering any *woo* stuff, but you cannot figure out the solution ?

Honestly? I'd do absolutely nothing. While I'm generally curious and want to why things happen and how everything works, there's only so much time in one life. Hearing a funny noise that I'm not sure of the source just doesn't seem particularly important. I know funny noises happen perfectly naturally, so I'm just not going to spend a lot of time worrying about what a particular noise might have been. It's OK to just say "I don't know" and go and do something else. Science advances because people are interested in what's going on, but it also only advances because people are able to focus on the things that are actually likely to have an interesting answer and not waste time on every little thing.

That's the weird thing about ghost stories - the vast majority of them are just incredibly boring. Why would someone spend years of their life worrying about the time a creaky old house made some creaking noises? Everyone knows that funny noises happen and that you often won't be able to work out what made them, so what's the point? It's a boring story about something you know you'll never have enough data to reach a conclusive answer. So why do so many people remember stories exactly like this one decades later as if it was some incredibly interesting event? And why do they spend so much time thinking about and investigating things that just aren't interesting or unusual?

 

[cj.23]

I think the special pleading is in people's insistence that stories are evidence.
In no other branch of science would they be exclusively used.

I'm also at a loss to know why "getting to know the investigators" would help in any objective way. Unless those investigators actually had some objective evidence that they were keeping to themselves that they only showed to their friends.

Well it makes sense in terms of Enfield for example, because most of the sceptical critiques of the case revolve around Maurice Grosse's relationship with the family and reliability of testimony. So asking Maurice to present his response to the critiques is a fair way to learn more. Given the eyewitnesses from South Shields, Enfield etc are in the main still with us, it strikes me as perfectly sensible to cross examine them about their testimony. Why is this not scientific? It certainly has been a fvaoured sceptical tactic for years, and one i endorse. I'm not saying "trash the witness" - I'm saying ask questions until you understand exactly what they believe occurred, and what the other possibilities are

cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Well it makes sense in terms of Enfield for example, because most of the sceptical critiques of the case revolve around Maurice Grosse's relationship with the family and reliability of testimony. So asking Maurice to present his response to the critiques is a fair way to learn more. Given the eyewitnesses from South Shields, Enfield etc are in the main still with us, it strikes me as perfectly sensible to cross examine them about their testimony. Why is this not scientific? It certainly has been a fvaoured sceptical tactic for years, and one i endorse. I'm not saying "trash the witness" - I'm saying ask questions until you understand exactly what they believe occurred, and what the other possibilities are

cj x

But there's still nothing objective about it.
Asking someone to further explain their subjective experience, as interesting as it may be is not moving anything closer to objective conclusion.
If a testimony is deemed unreliable (and why wouldn't they be if there is no objective evidence to support them), what use is relying upon that testimony to back up the doubted testimony?

 

[GeeMack]

But there's still nothing objective about it.
Asking someone to further explain their subjective experience, as interesting as it may be is not moving anything closer to objective conclusion.
If a testimony is deemed unreliable (and why wouldn't they be if there is no objective evidence to support them), what use is relying upon that testimony to back up the doubted testimony?

Well it sure makes the ghost and poltergeist believers feel good. It makes the "UFOs = alien craft" advocates feel like they're right about, well, something. It makes the x-ray vision kidney seers all cozy happy. So it has some use.

 

[Resume]

Well it sure makes the ghost and poltergeist believers feel good. It makes the "UFOs = alien craft" advocates feel like they're right about, well, something. It makes the x-ray vision kidney seers all cozy happy. So it has some use.

Like Anne Elk (Miss) I have a theory.

Ahem: People mistake some **** for a whole other kind of ****.

And it is mine, the theory.

 

[Garrette]

Of course respect to anyone who has a great deal of knowledge on a subject is acknowledged.
What is being pointed out is that having knowledge of a lot of stories leaps over the fact that there is no objective evidence that a single one of those stories is accurate or true. Therefore there is no objective conclusion to be reached from them.

Agreed, but I do not think cj falls into that category (I could be wrong). Mostly he points out flaws in the psi research as well as the rest of us.

 

[cj.23]

Hi Garette, good to see you here! Thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid I am forever known as a woo - I may as well embrace it, and enjoy it, and have fun, as I am apparently forever divorced from critical thinking and scientific methodology by the fact I happen to work in a rather unfashionable area. Time to play, and offer evidence!

And so as a true Arch-Wooid I must now don my robe of Unbearable Fluffiness, wave my wand of Aura Adjusting and putting on my Helmet of Unassailable Woo Ignorance offer what is claimed to be the best evidence for poltergeists in recent years: Dr Barrie Colvin's painstaking research in to unusual acoustic characteristics of poltergeist raps (sustained attack etc). If true this prove it is possible ravenous polterwotsits prepare to devour good sceptics, and are even now hiding under the bed, or so the mainstream media would have us believe? I'm pretty excited by the research; and I proffer it as evidence, for people who like doing such things to try and debunk. Google is your friend folks

(And yes, there is a typically black CJ joke lurking within this challenge. )


cj x

 

[Stray Cat]

Hi Garette, good to see you here! Thanks for the kind words. I'm afraid I am forever known as a woo - I may as well embrace it, and enjoy it, and have fun, as I am apparently forever divorced from critical thinking and scientific methodology by the fact I happen to work in a rather unfashionable area. Time to play, and offer evidence!

I haven't thought of you as a "woo"... more a "wooOOOoooo!!!!!" [insert echoey sound effect]

And so as a true Arch-Wooid I must now don my robe of Unbearable Fluffiness, wave my wand of Aura Adjusting and putting on my Helmet of Unassailable Woo Ignorance offer what is claimed to be the best evidence for poltergeists in recent years: Dr Barrie Colvin's painstaking research in to unusual acoustic characteristics of poltergeist raps (sustained attack etc). If true this prove it is possible ravenous polterwotsits prepare to devour good sceptics, and are even now hiding under the bed, or so the mainstream media would have us believe? I'm pretty excited by the research; and I proffer it as evidence, for people who like doing such things to try and debunk. Google is your friend folks

I've highlighted the important part here.
If it has not already been shown (using objective evidence) to be true, it's pointless.

If the best evidence anyone has, is as yet not proven to be true, that says a lot about the other lesser evidence.