• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What would convince YOU of something "paranormal"?

I will also have to go with when there is compelling evidence of something that can be duplicated. It seems that skeptics are like auto mechanics. The noise is never there when you bring it in to the shop.
 
Ironically, the question should be reverted to strong believers of the paranormal into "What would convince you that what you're convinced is paranormal, is not paranormal?"

Many of the strong believers in woo, have not even bothered to establish a criteria under which they would falsify a paranormal claim. They haven't stopped to wonder a scenario in which they could differentiate between the claim being true and the claim being wrong.
 
mactonite said:
I will also have to go with when there is compelling evidence of something that can be duplicated. It seems that skeptics are like auto mechanics. The noise is never there when you bring it in to the shop.
Click to expand...

You just likened James Randi to "repairman syndrome".
rofl2.gif
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Ironically, the question should be reverted to strong believers of the paranormal into "What would convince you that what you're convinced is paranormal, is not paranormal?"
Click to expand...


Strong believers of the paranormal are usually people who have had strong experiences of the paranormal, or claim to at any rate. Good luck trying to convince them that some internet armchair skeptic should be trusted more than their own eyes and heart and gut.
 
Last edited:
Learjet said:
Convince you in reality, unless you think there might be something on TV worthy of consideration?
Click to expand...

Well to convince me personally in reality would take a full on ghost interacting with me.
Something where I wasn't woke up from sleeping and lasting at least 15 to 20 minutes being constant the entire time.
I would also require some kind of information given to me by the ghost that I would have no way of knowing otherwise.

Nothing on a TV show could convince me.
 
Limbo said:
Strong believers of the paranormal are usually people who have had strong experiences of the paranormal, or claim to at any rate. Good luck trying to convince them that some internet armchair skeptic should be trusted more than their own eyes and heart and gut.
Click to expand...

Except that like myself, some of the highlighted have had their own "strong experiences" that when reviewed later, did indeed have natural explanations despite what their (my) own eyes, heart and gut told them (me).
 
Gawdzilla said:
You just likened James Randi to "repairman syndrome".
Click to expand...

ah yes, that is the term I was looking for. Repairman syndrome. Is it not true though? I suppose it would be in reverse though. The wooers claim that there powers work, but when Randi gets there, they stop.

A couple of case I can think of:

Uri Geller on Johnny Carson( Johnny consulted with Randi )
That phonebook page turning guy( name escapes me )
etc..
 
mactonite said:
ah yes, that is the term I was looking for. Repairman syndrome. Is it not true though? I suppose it would be in reverse though. The wooers claim that there powers work, but when Randi gets there, they stop.

A couple of case I can think of:

Uri Geller on Johnny Carson( Johnny consulted with Randi )
That phonebook page turning guy( name escapes me )
etc..
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I just pictured him in a t-shirt with a variation on that. :D IF I get to speak with him next weekend I'll mention it. (Kudos for you will be passed.)
 
Limbo said:
Strong believers of the paranormal are usually people who have had strong experiences of the paranormal, or claim to at any rate. Good luck trying to convince them that some internet armchair skeptic should be trusted more than their own eyes and heart and gut.
Click to expand...

I know. Such is the problem with self delusion of strong woo believers.
But even if it was more than just "some internet armchair skeptic" on the other side of the internet... even if it was someone in front of them, in real life, presenting them strong arguments, many of them believers would still not give up their pet beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
Ironically, the question should be reverted to strong believers of the paranormal into "What would convince you that what you're convinced is paranormal, is not paranormal?"
Click to expand...

That's a good question! Maybe you could start a new thread. Are there enough paranormal believer types who hang out here to get an answer, do you think?

I suppose a lot of the times though, the answer would be, "nothing."

:(
 
What would convince me of the existence of the "paranormal" is if someone who claims to have paranormal powers were challenged to make a demonstration in front of skeptics and in the middle of the demonstration said that the skeptics were blocking his paranormal powers to move the light pages of a phone book or to bend a spoon with their skeptic or somewhat negative thoughts. That would mean that skeptics have strong mental powers capable of blocking other mental powers.

But seriously. First, an important part of the skeptic community would have to change their view on a "paranormal" phenomenon to even bother me. If that happened, I would read carefully all the details of the experiments and the arguments in favor of such conclusion. I'd like to witness in person a paranormal activity too under controlled conditions if it were possible. If there were not a better and simpler explanation (parsimony) I would have to dismiss my inductive based conclusion that the paranormal stuff is bogus.

However, I think that the existence of paranormal stuff would revolutionize our society to the extent that we wouldn't need to think about skeptic principles and how to be convinced. We would just see objects flying, people consistently telling us exactly what we are thinking, etc. If something like that is real, it can't be so amazingly elusive. Gravity doesn't disappear for obscure reasons precisely when we're doing an experiment with gravity.
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
I know. Such is the problem with self delusion of strong woo believers.
Click to expand...


Its your own armchair-ness that leads you to think in terms of the self-delusion of others, rather than in terms of your own inexperience. :p
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
Its your own armchair-ness that leads you to think in terms of the self-delusion of others, rather than in terms of your own inexperience. :p
Click to expand...

Someone has had a bad experience with an armchair in the past, it seems.
 
Only thing that would convince you is when James Randi tells you that there are Ghosts.
 
Nichiro said:
Only thing that would convince you is when James Randi tells you that there are Ghosts.
Click to expand...

I would believe if panel of the following people were believers
Michael Shermer
R. Dawkins
Penn and Teller
my father-in-law
James Randi
and anyone in the JREF forums with the user name tag "penultimate amazing"

oh and baby Jesus
 
Last edited:
Learjet said:
As a skeptical fan of ghost hunting, I sometimes ask myself what it would take for me to accept something as paranormal.

I'm constantly amazed at the inane experiments that "paranormal investigators" or "ghost hunters" do to convince themselves that they have a ghost. Let me list a few off the top of my head.

The use of EMF meters.
Laser spot thermometers.
Thermal cameras.
The flashlight trick.
EVP's.
"Make a sound".
"Move something".

All of which either happen by chance or the equipment misused / misinterpreted. They seem to be willing to accept a positive from anything and everything.

So what would it take for me? I'm thinking levitation of an object that doesn't normally levitate or fly on it's own. Like a cup, chair, table, person - whatever. (In the absence of drafts, trickery or mental illness of course.) That's one thing anyway.

What would convince you guys?
Click to expand...

Double blinding, protocls that are tight, eliminating confounding factors, replication, statistics that rise above the level of noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom