Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Alisdair.MacDonald

Paranormal investigation and the darkness.

51 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I open this up to believers and skeptics alike.

While investigating the paranormal, why do ghost hunters always turn out the lights?

If you're trying to capture evidence, wouldn't it be better to keep the lights on?

Or is it something about the darkness that make ghouls and ghosts more active?

We have a natural fear of the dark as human beings. While trying to be 'scientific' (i use that word loosely) wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate the possibility of one's mind being influenced by our own imagination?

Instead of taking what you see on television as gospel for what everybody does, I'd urge you to approach groups that actually take their investigations seriously and question them. Don't be another lazy keyboard warrior skeptic.

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of taking what you see on television as gospel for what everybody does, I'd urge you to approach groups that actually take their investigations seriously and question them. Don't be another lazy keyboard warrior skeptic.

I'm not actually a skeptic. That doesn't mean I don't try to be scientific about things and look for all possible explanations for what people may or may not be experiencing. Personally I am sick to death of television programs on the subject. I don't know where you're basing your criticisms, but you're not even close.

I'm being lazy because I am using the appropriate forum to ask a legitimate question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well. Thanks for your opinion, anything to say on the topic, or did you just come here to troll?

Actually, yeah I do.

You shouldn't post the same topic twice.

http://www.unexplain...hosts dark&st=0

Sept 14 2012

Edited by coldethyl
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always believed that most paranormal investigating is done in darkness because of our reliance on our sense of sight. In total darkness our other senses are heightened. We tend to listen more closely, detect unusual smells quicker, etc, basically we pay closer attention to our surroundings. Of course I have no idea if this is the "true" reason people hunt ghosts in the dark, but it's my mindset in the paranormal group I'm in.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yes it is. That is why it is called "The theory of gravity"..but i'm not going to go back and forth on it.

No, that is entirely wrong.

The word 'theory' is merely a word. It has various meanings. One meaning, in the context of science, is that of a rigid framework with evidential backing to model or explain something like evolution, gravity, quantum physics, etc. The reason people talk about a "theory of gravity" is because they are using theory in the way it is used by scientists, not in the everyday meaning some people use that means a mere hypothesis.

You are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation in which someone uses a particular definition of a word in a situation where another definition of the same word is meant to be used. You think that because one meaning of the word "theory" is that which my dictionary describes as "a speculative view" means that the "theory of gravity" is therefore a "speculative view". However, my dictionary also offers a definition for theory meaning "a system of ideas explaining something" which is the context in which scientists use the word. You are using the wrong definition in this context.

Anyway, you didn't actually adress my overall point. If the theory of gravity (there isn't a single theory BTW, sometimes Newton's theory is used even though Einstein's is superior because Newton's theory is simpler and works perfectly fine in non-extreme situations) is "pure conjecture" then how do the things I mentioned above - space probes, moon missions, etc. work? You can't put a man on the moon, land a rover on Mars, calculate planetary orbits, use a gravitational slingshot to re-aim a deep space probe, etc. on the basis of "pure conjecture".

Edited by Archimedes
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not actually a skeptic. That doesn't mean I don't try to be scientific about things and look for all possible explanations for what people may or may not be experiencing. Personally I am sick to death of television programs on the subject. I don't know where you're basing your criticisms, but you're not even close.

I'm being lazy because I am using the appropriate forum to ask a legitimate question?

Well yeah...I would have thought it's common sense to ask those who are more likely to possess the answers you seek rather than just anyone on some forum...may as well just go around asking people on the street.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's terrible. Barely a couple of sentences in and the ignorance is astonishing.
If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun

The moon does go around the sun. If it didn't go round the sun as well as going round the earth, then it wouldn't remain in orbit as earth orbited the sun. Think about it.

The rest of the article is just too depressing to deal with. It reads like a parody of anti-science religious fundy nonsense.

Clyde Tombaugh's discovery of Pluto is apparently problematic because he relied on gravitational calculations and not on scripture. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Adherents of gravity have a tough time explaining why airplanes don't fall? No they don't. You can't build an airplane without taking gravity into account. The whole goddamn point behind an airplane is that it is designed to generate lifting force to counteract gravity. It's him that needs to explain why airplanes have wings to generate lift if there's no such thing as gravity that would pull them downward. What bizarre nonsense.

It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it. Having read that I am now convinced it must be parody. Nobody can be so stupid as to believe that something doesn't exist because the founders of the United States never mentioned it. No-one in a sane state of mind can possibly believe such a thing.

Do you believe this article you just linked to?

edit: It's one of the first links on Google if you search for 'gravity is only a theory' so I'm wondering if Alisdair merely did a Google search and linked to one of the first things he found. At least I hope he did.

edit2: Ho ho. My suspicions were right. It is indeed a parody of creationism written by a physicist called Ellery Schemp, originally for The Humanist magazine. Either Alisdair got Poe'd or he's having us on.

Edited by Archimedes
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We investigate both day and night, but night is preferable due to it being quieter and less human activity going on. When we investigate public houses or commercial buildings there would be far too much electrical interference and general noise, as well as passing traffic. The darkness does help raise your awareness and your hearing is more finely tuned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I am very impressed with the efforts to criticize every notation of everything I have to say, simply because they don't agree with me. I would just have to add, that if it take so much effort to prove I am wrong..then maybe you should reconsider your position. I've said nothing I am going to back down from, so i don't really know what you people expect.

I do appreciate everyone who has stayed on topic though.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said nothing I am going to back down from, so i don't really know what you people expect.
Does that include not backing down from linking to a parody article that is making fun of creationism to defend the idea that gravity is pure speculation?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that include not backing down from linking to a parody article that is making fun of creationism to defend the idea that gravity is pure speculation?

It includes knowing that even a parody article has a better fundamental understanding of the principles of the scientific method than you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It includes knowing that even a parody article has a better fundamental understanding of the principles of the scientific method than you do.

Do you agree with the article with the following claims:

1. The fact that Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto without using the Bible is a problem.

2. The fact that the Founding Fathers of the United States never mentioned gravity in their writings is evidence that it does not exist.

3. That engineers do not take gravity into account when designing airplanes.

4. That the moon does not go round the sun. [hint: it simultaneously goes around the earth and the sun. Think about it.]

5. That Jupiter has no rings.

6. That the theory of gravity supports the communist idea that '

Those are just a few of the deliberately ridiculous claims that the author made up to make fun of creationists. If you think those claims involve understanding the scientific method, then you are beyond reasoning with.

Edited by Archimedes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are. ;)

..now, go away.

No.

Do you agree with the article with the following claims:

1. The fact that Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto without using the Bible is a problem.

2. The fact that the Founding Fathers of the United States never mentioned gravity in their writings is evidence that it does not exist.

3. That engineers do not take gravity into account when designing airplanes.

4. That the moon does not go round the sun. [hint: it simultaneously goes around the earth and the sun. Think about it.]

5. That Jupiter has no rings.

6. That the theory of gravity supports the communist idea that "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass".

Do you agree with those claims in the anti-creationist parody article you are defending or not?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread reminds me of an episode of father ted.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Do you agree with the article with the following claims:

1. The fact that Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto without using the Bible is a problem.

2. The fact that the Founding Fathers of the United States never mentioned gravity in their writings is evidence that it does not exist.

3. That engineers do not take gravity into account when designing airplanes.

4. That the moon does not go round the sun. [hint: it simultaneously goes around the earth and the sun. Think about it.]

5. That Jupiter has no rings.

6. That the theory of gravity supports the communist idea that "to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass".

Do you agree with those claims in the anti-creationist parody article you are defending or not?

I'm not defending those beliefs. Those are not my words. Don't hold me to something I did not personally say.

If you want to call me on anything, call me on linking an article without reading the entire thing. I am guilty of that, I admit. You have me there.

However the entire conversation is pointless. Since you cannot understand a simple fact that no matter what your 6th grade science teacher may have taught you, a theory is only ever just a theory. It may be "highly likely", however it will always be there, to continue to be tested. Even in science it is very difficult to call something a "law".

Walk into any credible university and ask any science professor the same question and you will get the same response. I don't think that would matter for you however, because it is obvious that there is no room for abstract thought in your narrow minded worldview.

People have always criticized those working on the 'fringe' of scientific thought, and yet the majority of major scientific breakthroughs have come from those very same fringe elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't come here to educate the masses in science, or morals, or thread etiquette. I came here to use a public forum, to ask a really simple question.

I think anyone who has come here without any interest in the topic of conversation whatsoever, and only to 'stir the pot' should be ashamed of themselves, and should really consider getting a hobby besides trolling web forums for attention, or using them as a vent to express intellectual insecurities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't come here to educate the masses in science, or morals, or thread etiquette. I came here to use a public forum, to ask a really simple question.

I think anyone who has come here without any interest in the topic of conversation whatsoever, and only to 'stir the pot' should be ashamed of themselves, and should really consider getting a hobby besides trolling web forums for attention, or using them as a vent to express intellectual insecurities.

No offense but...

So, You are basically saying "I am right and you are wrong, if people who discredit my theories (Which I claim/act like they are facts) with use of commonsense and proven facts, I will call them trolls"?

You are your own train wreck.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm not defending those beliefs. Those are not my words. Don't hold me to something I did not personally say.

If you want to call me on anything, call me on linking an article without reading the entire thing. I am guilty of that, I admit. You have me there.

So you linked to a parody article without reading it and without realising that it was a parody of creationism in order to defend your belief that gravity is 'pure speculation' and claimed that the parody article is a good representation of the fundamentals of scientific understanding. And now that that has been explained to you, you are desperately backtracking from defending said article. Got it.
However the entire conversation is pointless. Since you cannot understand a simple fact that no matter what your 6th grade science teacher may have taught you, a theory is only ever just a theory. It may be "highly likely", however it will always be there, to continue to be tested. Even in science it is very difficult to call something a "law".
As I already explained, the word 'theory' is just a word. It means different things in different contexts. When scientists talk about a scientific theory (a systematic explanation of a natural phenomenon) they do not mean the same thing as when people talk about a 'theory' (as in a mere hypothesis). Look up 'equivocation' on Google to learn about the fallacy you are engaging in.
Walk into any credible university and ask any science professor the same question and you will get the same response.
What question?
I don't think that would matter for you however, because it is obvious that there is no room for abstract thought in your narrow minded worldview.
You know nothing about my worldview and how narrow minded or open minded it is. Just because I call shenanigans on your bizarre anti-gravitationism doesn't make my worldview narrow minded.
People have always criticized those working on the 'fringe' of scientific thought, and yet the majority of major scientific breakthroughs have come from those very same fringe elements.
People laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Koko the Clown. The fact that people laugh at something is not evidence that it isn't laughable. If you're right, prove yourself right instead of thinking that people criticising at you is evidence that you are right. Edited by Archimedes
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats.

Wow, first friendly thing you've said. EVER.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't come here to educate the masses in science, or morals, or thread etiquette. I came here to use a public forum, to ask a really simple question.

I think anyone who has come here without any interest in the topic of conversation whatsoever, and only to 'stir the pot' should be ashamed of themselves, and should really consider getting a hobby besides trolling web forums for attention, or using them as a vent to express intellectual insecurities.

No, you certainly didn't because you have no thread etiquette. And you asked the question over 6 months ago. You should have just bumped the original thread. Who wants attention? You're the one who started fighting. It's there in black and white, so is the link to the original thread.

3ofbqs_zps3fb373bf.jpg

Edited by coldethyl
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Alisdair, did you forget your first post on this thread?

I open this up to believers and skeptics alike.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel alot better now that this kid is barking at everyone and not just me. I was honestly sad when he posted about me trolling, I apologized thinking he got the wrong idea and maybe I hadn't worded my response correctly. I even offered an opinion on his original question.

Now I see he just wants to figth with everyone hehe. There are some folks who added opinions about the original topic and he really hasn't offered his view on their takes. Troll is serious business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You didn't do anything wrong, this guy just has an enormous chip on his shoulder for some reason.

Just remember:

>>Snip<<

LOL

LOL! I've missed you Cold!!! Been a long time! You always have a way of making me laugh!

Edited by kmt_sesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! I've missed you Cold!!! Been a long time! You always have a way of making me laugh!

:tu: My pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone through this thread to clean up some of the uncivil and/or off-topic comments. I doubt I caught everything, but I shouldn't have to do this in the first place. We are all adults, I presume.

  • Posters are reminded not to make negaitve comments about other posters. We're here to discuss specific topics, not specific UM members.
  • Posters should refrain from telling other posters how to post and what to write or not write.
  • Posters are reminded to remain on-topic if they join in the discussion. If a poster has nothing relevant to add or does not like the topic, he or she should not be participating in the discussion in the first place.

There is a Report button. If you feel there is a problem with forum etiquette, please use this feature.

Thank you.

kmt_sesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.