Here goes, what constitutes proof now a days? If its too real it is assumed to be a fake and photoshoped, if it is unclear or you cant make it out then its a dust particle, a cloud or whatvever. So once again it raises a BIG question WHAT CONSTITUTES PROOF?

Until I see it with my own eyes, and have my experiences with something paranormal etc I cant say I will believe it, I just want to here your opinions.

you know i think good video evidence might sway me. it would have to be video evidence where the entire subject was in the picture tho, none of this stuff i've seen on tv where the door mysteriously opens but you can't see the top or the bottom of the door.
or of course i'd just have to experience it myself...

Proof, in the scientific world, depends on what you are trying to prove. The basic rule of thumb is that you need to make your case far more credible than the idea of something happening in a different manner, however that is a very abstract and difficult idea for people unexperienced with scientific methodology to grasp.

For subjects such as these, what is being searched is proof of existance. Not explanations, not theories, but just basic, simple, hard evidence that the phenomena exists to begin with. What is needed, in order to prove that the phenomena exists, is repeatability.

Single events, no matter how clear the video or picture, or how credible the source, do not proof make. Proof consists of something refered to as Preponderance of Evidence. This means that there is such an enormouse amount of data, not just a tidbit here and there, that indicates that this is so, that there is no wuestion as to the existance of the phenomena. The trouble with single shots of info is that, statistically, they aren't rare. People mistake things they see all the time. Coincidences happen regularly. Even if I were to see a ghost with my own eyes (and I have done just that), human eyesight and psychology has been shown to be fallible, enough so to be skeptical about the very information my own senses are giving.

Proof cannot rely on subjective evidence, not even if the person giving the evidence is yourself (perhaps, especially if the evidence is coming from yourself). Proof of existance must be repeatable, must be objective, and must be credible. Explanations are not needed at this early stage. All that is needed is the phenomena itself, repeatably occuring, and observed in an objective fashion.

Proof of a haunting requires physical evidence as well.

scientifically proof would have to be an expeiment.

science operates on the principle of having a testable hypothesis and an the experiment must be repeatable by other experimenters and the results must concur this is the only way paranormal claims will be accepted by the credible scientific community

other wise it is bad science (i.e not specifying conditions, variables etc)

I think nowadays, in the technological age we are in, it would seem apparent that it is easier to get 'proof', be it EVPs pictures of orbs or whatever. Unfortunately, on the other side of the coin, it seems that we are relying too much on the technology we have available now.

I guess the only way to get stone cold proof is to be able to take scientific readings/measurements in some kind of controlled environment. Once you have that, then you would probably be able to start to understand what we are actually dealing with. I have heard all sorts of things that apparently 'cause' hauntings, the most outlandish one being 'geomagnetic storms'

If only it were that easy...

If this were the case, would that not at least point the way to all this just being natural events that we have yet to understand?

why does one emphasize on proof when being a skeptic. skepticsm is a thought you use to train your brain or mind to block out what you don't want to see. it has a little to do with ones belief too. If you do not believe then you will have less proof. You don't have to believe, but open, being able to recognize certain things that are happening around you.
Example: If your were to hear about a man lurking in the woods, by observing you would think you'd find him.So if i stood in the woods somewhere wearing all camo or a guilly suit and you traveled through these woods, would you see me? more than likely not if i conceal my hide. But, if a friend were to warn you that some weirdo was standing around in the woods wearing BDU's or full camoflauge, than there's a better chance of me being spotted because you would process the pattern. Before, while you were looking for me...i was really the observer... but if i were to be seen or observed by you, than i would either react to your acknowledgment by either responding or fleeing.

My point is not that any of this is any kind of proof but to first open minds. Most of us in this forum already knows this but this would be a away to explain to a skeptic? Right? What if there was no logical explaination?

One does so because the purpose of skepticism is to verify a phenomenon using objective, logical, and credible supporting data.



Not at all. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Skepticism requires the removal of personal desire in favor of the objective data.



The reason the skeptic looks for objective evidence is so that they can be assured that their personal beliefs are not interfering. It is entirely to easy for a person to convince themselves that they are experiencing something that they are not. Because of that, any data must be capable of being perceived in the exact same manner by unbiased third parties. It has nothing to do with having an open mind, but rather with having a disciplined mind. All minds have limitation; skepticism gears limitations to accurately reflect the objective world, while belief systems gear their limitations to supporting their own beliefs.



Then you refer to it as an unexplained mystery, until such time as more data surfaces to help you classify it. Unexplained does not, however, default automatically into ghosts, aliens, or Bigfoot.

what i was trying to explain is that skepticism seems to put people in a state of influence to which they become detached and not wanting to fully participate. like say if you don't believe in god, you probably won't pay as much attention in church and if you really don't want to be there, you'll spend more time thinking about wanting to leave and for it to be over. depending on which type of skeptic you are, the type that is open to things or the type that wants to win by trying to prove everyone wrong.

well, my skepticism is I want to eliminate the probable before resorting to the improbable. I have had a lot of what would be called 'supernatural' experiences, but because they only happened once, and I was'nt purposefully trying to gather data on it, it could've been anything.

I just don't walk into things with my eyes wide open to accept everything is supernormal, I wear the shades until it is comfortable to see...

Would some thing unseen Grabbing you on your back side repeatedly be called proof. Or would it have to be some one elses back side, while you observe? Sounds complicated.

it would be more logical as proof if you are the observer while it is happening to someone else. If it's happening to you and they are unseen.. would they be the observer?

Ah, an interesting scenario, if a bit improbable. Very similar to that of a medium claiming she feels the spirits in the room while other people kind of look at each other uncomfortably, not sure what to say.

Ideally, there is some sort of grab mark from the pervert ghost, however, even at that, it is still subjective, because, ultimately, the source is a personal claim. If a person claims they have a broken arm, it doesn't matter if it is you with the broken arm or if it someone else, it is still only a subjective opinion that the arm is broken, until such time as objective proof, such as an X-Ray, is taken.

Very well put! That right there sums it up in a nutshell.

Personally I think that, in parapsychology, we're going about it all backwards. Instead of trying to capture the perfect "proof" of individual hauntings, we need to start analyzing the mass of evidence that has been gathered over the last century to try to figure out the underlying laws that govern these phenomenon. Then, when we can say, for example, "in this location, when the humidity is at 73% and the ambient light is such and such, this apparition will appear", and other researchers can go to that location and duplicate the conditions and get the same result, then we will be approaching proof.

Precisely. For all we know, the preponderance of evidence needed to validate the existence of a given pehnomena is already out there, but hasn't been approached in a credible scientific manner.

propably having the ghost give u a book from afterlife! lol i really hard to get proof! everyone wants different types of proof!

So who is convinced that there is <i>something</i> out there?

Sorry for the double post but what part of North Carolina are you from GreatTenChim?