Slashdot Mirror
Paranormal Investigations and Belief in Ghosts
Esther Schindler writes "Sure, everyone uses technology on the job. But you may not have contemplated the tools used by paranormal investigators (at least, not until you began thinking about Halloween) who look for the truth in ghosts and other things that go Bump in the Night. In Paranormal Investigations and Technology: Where Ghosts and Gadgets Meet, CIO's Al Sacco writes about the most unusual of tool chests, with everything from thermometers to blimp cams." You want spooky? An anonymous reader passed a link to a survey that says a third of Americans believe in ghosts. Who you gonna call?
Years ago a fellow I knew took to hanging out in graveyards with his camera and film sensitive to Infra Red (pick up the background IR, except where spirits, which apparently suck the energy out of their surroundings when they manifest themselves.) He claimed to have taken actual photos of ghosts hanging about graves, including some which were posessed. He offered to show me some of his work, but I wasn't in a mood for it as my Grandmum had recently passed away.
So here's this bloke:
Auerbach, on the other hand, strongly feels that ghosts and specters cannot be photographed. "If they could be, people would've already," Auerbach says. So this fellow with pictures was fiddling the film?I do believe in spooks! I do, I do, I do believe in spooks! Oh, sod, who was it then?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Not knocking the religious, just saying that 1/3 of Americans believing in the supernatural should not surprise anyone.
nothing.can.stop.me.now
What is there more evidence of...ghosts, or neutrinos?
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
How exactly are origins not part of science? If you want to know how a system originated, you might carefully study its current state and the manner in which it develops over time, and thereby attempt to deduce by reason the state it would have occupied in the past. Or alternatively you might invoke God. One of these approaches is science, the other is not.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
It's the quantum!
Listening to the skeptics guide to the universe podcast. It has helped me learn how to deal with these people and how to bring them back to reality.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You might understand it's a TV show, you just seem to misunderstand what the fact it's a TV show means. Simply put, they will lie to make more interesting TV.
(There is nothing particularly supreme about any of the Greek, Nordic or Celtic "Gods", for example. Nor were they ascribed unique ownership of any segment of worldly affairs. As best as I can tell, such views seem to originate more with the Semitic peoples and it is largely Judeo-Christian anthropologists who attach such views to others.)
Without a clear, meaningful definition of what it is a person is rejecting, it makes no sense to talk about rejecting it, because what you are rejecting, what others think you are rejecting and what you think you are rejecting are not going to be the same except by chance alone. However, this gets interesting in the case of anything which, by definition, transcends that which can be defined. It's like asking a computer to solve a non-computable problem. If a computer could solve it, it would not be non-computable.
The easiest way to handle this case is to simply place it into the category of "unknowable", along with all of the things that science has firmly and definitively shown to be unknowable. If you add two unknowables together, you still end up with an unknowable, so it really doesn't matter which of the unknowables are real and which aren't. At least, from any kind of scientific perspective.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...and I believe the other poster's point was this:
While science has some really interesting guesses about the origins of the universe, as does religion, the simple fact remains that they're BOTH guesses. True, it's more systematic with science. However, most real agnostics and atheists I know will admit it's a guess either way, and as a Christian I need to honestly admit the same.
Folks, I'm with Jubal Harshaw on this:
"Come Judgement Day, if they hold it, we may find that Mumbo JumboDon't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
For months I saw something that seemed to be a person moving just at the edge of my vision, on rare occasion, usually late at night when I was alone reading a book. But when I got up to look carefully, no one was there, or could possibly have been there.
Ghosts!
Or...maybe not. I went to the optometrist for my regular check-up, and she found a bunch of "floaters" in my eye. If I look at a blank wall, I can see them sometimes, they drift in and out of my field of view, and if I look steadily, the optic system edits them out and they vanish.
So, of course, when it was late at night and I was already tired, and moved my eyes after staring at something steadily (the book) a floater would sometimes wander into view briefly, and I'd "see" a moving shadow for a second or two.
False dichotomy, asshole. Some people understand real morality, instead of the childish behavior of trying to avoid a spanking from an imaginary Daddy In The Sky.
What makes you think that you have to have a supernatural to have morality? Or are you saying that you need a belief in the supernatural to have morality? If this is the case, why are atheists so under represented in prison population statistics?
The smarter home exchange, http://switchhomes.net
Science does guess. That's the scientific method. Guess, and then see how well your guess conforms with observation. It is the nature of induction. It doesn't deduce anything directly from observation. Furthermore, science can say nothing about the actual origin of the universe, or its cause; it can only form conclusions about the things that happened immediately after the origin.
First of all, all denominations of Christianity, as well as Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, acknowledge that the one infinite, timeless God created all of nature and humanity. There is no disagreement whatsoever on that point. There is observable proof of God, and of God's influence, which is why these religions have so many adherents. However, it is internal rather than external proof. It cannot be measured by machines or even quantified, so it is outside the reach of science.
I stated that science makes no such guess - it's still working on the answer, but has some observations as to what's occurred.
That's the thesis that I am arguing against. I say that there are scientists or at least people that speak for it, who argue that science does KNOW, as in factually, how the universe was made and how we evolved. They cross in their minds a preponderance of evidence based largely on internal consistency with a faith that the fabric of physics has been constant and unchanged over the life of the universe. It is faith, it is unprovable, and that's the point... until you actually say you went back in time and saw the universe born, or talked to someone who was there, you haven't really proved a thing. The essence of true science is roof requires witness, get it?
In other words, what really differentiates science from mysticism is the idea that you can do something, and show it to somebody else, by doing the same thing again. You can't show someone else your little angel, but you can show someone vinegar and baking soda fizzing when you mix them. But now, some would have us believe that you don't have to witness to have science, and really, that's simply not true. Evolution, creation physics, all of that, IS NOT SCIENCE. Period. It's a good story, for sure, and to some extent, based on the evidence of what we have, is interesting, but, until you can say that you've seen the universe born or the first step of man yourself, and can show someone else, than, you don't have much more than Noah... its a cool story. Yes, evolution fits together well, and, you could probably walk into a court and slam the Creator down as guilty of it, but, there's that nagging issue of witness that must cause us to say that, we will never, ever, ever, really KNOW. No witness, no proof, and no proof, no science. It's really very simple. Anything else is faith.
This is my sig.