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 6
xFelix

The Paranormal is it Fake?

853 posts in this topic

Yeah, paranormal is a pretty blanket term. I don't think in a blanket sense it can be proven not to exist. I do think that often on a case by case basis, science can be pretty helpful in ruling out paranormal, usually by ruling in another explanation. And there's heaps of stuff out there that hasn't been figured out yet too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you claiming that fairies, elves and the boogeymen don't exist? I will wait while you try to prove such a claim...

I am claiming that there is no evidence to support their existence therefore there is no reason to believe they do exist. If you wish to live in a world full of things that exist, you are far better off believing in the things that have evidence to support their existences.

The only flaw I see, is that of making an unsupported claim of something not existing and presenting it as fact in a condescending manner.

Let me express this in a mathematical way: there are an infinite number things that could exist, however there is only a finite number of things that do exist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I am claiming that there is no evidence to support their existence therefore there is no reason to believe they do exist. If you wish to live in a world full of things that exist, you are far better off believing in the things that have evidence to support their existences.

Let me express this in a mathematical way: there are an infinite number things that could exist, however there is only a finite number of things that do exist.

So according to your statement, many things that people believe to be paranormal actually have a possibility of existing, but none of this can be proven?

(These are the grounds by which most believers justify their beliefs by the way, there is a possibility they are right...)

Oh I see, so what about the verifiable evidence people keep saying they have that proves that these things absolutely do not exist?

(These are the grounds by which most skeptics tend to condescend onto believers...)

Again, not having verifiable evidence is not proper grounds for a conclusion. For one to arrive at a proper scientific conclusion one must absolutely prove their hypothesis true or false. Blank is not true or false. If one cannot arrive at true, one must then attempt to prove false, if they cannot prove false they must then settle for an inconclusive finding. This is how scientific method works.

By the way if we were to jump in a time capsule and I took you back 10 years and you said the same about Greenland Sharks you'd feel horrified at the thought that 10 years later it would be another thing that could be real, that was later proven to be real... Oh and for the record, there was also no reason to believe a Greenland Shark could exist because sharks do not thrive in waters that cold.. Until now. (And that's talking about an actual animal that doesn't exist in another dimension)

Yet we are still arguing semantics, show me the proof conclusively saying none of this exists. I don't want people to argue that there is a possibility it doesn't exist, or there are more logical things to believe in..(Because I agree, there is a possibility some of this doesn't exist, and there are more logical things to believe in, but my experiences tell me otherwise) There are countless threads where people say these things absolutely do not exist, and they have proof to back up their claims.. Present THAT.

Edited by xFelix
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see, so what about the verifiable evidence people keep saying they have that proves that these things absolutely do not exist?

(These are the grounds by which most skeptics tend to condescend onto believers...)

Ha, "prove it": provide your quote of someone saying they have 'verifiable evidence' that 'these things absolutely do not exist'. Once you do that, you can then proceed to proving that 'most' skeptics do this. It should be easy to do since you are saying it occurs on 'countless threads'.

By the way, disagreement does not equal condescension. We are just chatting there's nothing personal here, and you have already said things here that I do mostly agree with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to your statement, many things that people believe to be paranormal actually have a possibility of existing, but none of this can be proven?

Close. They can exist and can be proved but haven't.

Oh I see, so what about the verifiable evidence people keep saying they have that proves that these things absolutely do not exist?

I have no idea what you're referring to.

Again, not having verifiable evidence is not proper grounds for a conclusion.

But predominance of absence of evidence is reasonable grounds for a conclusion until evidence is discovered that contradicts this conclusion. That's because there are a finite number of things that exist yet there is an infinite number of things that don't exist.

For one to arrive at a proper scientific conclusion one must absolutely prove their hypothesis true or false. Blank is not true or false. If one cannot arrive at true, one must then attempt to prove false, if they cannot prove false they must then settle for an inconclusive finding. This is how scientific method works.

And as we're trying to tell you, a proper hypothesis must be falsifiable. "Prove that something doesn't exist" is not falsifiable therefore it is not a valid hypothesis in the Scientific Method. Until you understand that, don't try to pass your argument as being scientific.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you introduce yourself and I shake your hand... You are going to have an irrefutable experience that I exist weather everyone else says I do not it not. You could be personally dishonest and accept the drivel that you imagined me or I am the product of your delusion, but you would know that it's not true.

This is a good example to talk about Seeker, thanks. Depending on possible circumstances, no it is not irrefutable that my experience accurately reflects what actually happened. I realize that most people probably did not indulge as recklessly as I did when I was in college, but you do know that people do hallucinate, many involuntarily? Perception and memory are not at all perfect, and I can provide loads of scientific evidence to support this.

Now your example is fairly basic and commonplace, if this occurred agreed, we would probably be dishonest or whatever if we denied it. But let's start applying some of the attributes of the evidence for the paranormal to the scenario, and feel free to say if you disagree with any of the analogies I'm making. What if I told someone that we met and they were interested in knowing more about what you have to say; in this reality I would tell them to join UM and search for your posts, but there is no analogy for that when analyzing paranormal evidence, plenty of people have gone to places where ghosts supposedly were after the fact and found nothing. So it's like me telling someone I met you but I can produce no other evidence that you actually exist or did exist. (the example starts to break down a little here, there are reasons I should expect to be able to verify your existence that do not apply to the paranormal which is by definition elusive and hard to detect, I acknowledge that) The person has to believe that I am interpreting the experience I had correctly, which is a big assumption since it sure appears to me that people misinterpreting their experiences is not rare unless we are to believe anything anyone claims, which is not possible since some of it is contradictory. And obviously if people who were in the room when we met deny that I ever shook hands with you or anyone, then despite my experience I absolutely do not know it is true.

I accept black holes exist because I have had an irrefutable experience with the evidences laid before me by scientists. I accept that gravity exists because I have skinned my knee. I accet that the spirit works exists because I have been there seen it and interacted with its inhabitants.

Gravity and black holes are external to just anyone's 'personal experience' though, no one really questions that these exist. Lots and lots of people say that there is a spirit world they can interact with, and many of those people (psychics, speakers-with-the-dead) are providing no evidence that they actually are according to the things they say they can do based on this contact. Now that does not mean that all of them are fakes and doesn't mean that you haven't actually been to the spirit world, but what does it say about the quality of the evidence of the 'I've had a personal experience that no one but me can examine' sort?

To me this is really a core question and the thing I'm most curious about with these types of paranormal or religious claims. Yes I'm skeptical about lots of things, I try to apply that rigorously to the things I myself believe, but I understand that not everyone will draw the line the same as I will regarding what constitutes 'evidence'. But the thing that I don't get is how you are avoiding letting in everyone's personal experience as being 'evidence' then if we're going to be consistent, how can theirs be disregarded but yours must be 'irrefutable'? Maybe I'm making a bad assumption, maybe you think that anyone's truth claims based on nothing examinable except what they believe they experienced are actually true. I'm not sure how that can be since billions of people believe Jesus was the son of God, another billion think he was just a prophet, and the remainder just think he was a man or didn't even exist; he can't be all four of these things. You believe that you've been to the spirit world and I'm going to presume that there is nothing physically to verify that, we have to believe your interpretation of the experience, that is the evidence. This is precisely the case for all kinds of other claims that we know can't simultaneously be true, and depending on what you believe about them, you may also believe not to be true. You can say things like, "I know what happened" and "you can't know unless you've experienced it" and so on, and those are also exactly what other people who believe in things that can't be true also say. So it appears that there are many other people who are also having experiences that they 'know' are supernatural that are not actually true, it is not that unusual apparently, so in the face of that, how can we say that your specific experience is 'irrefutable', short of special pleading?

I understand it completely actually and I don't really fault people for it, but there is quit a bit of lazyness to their bias. once they are convinced they stop thinking critically and stop looking deeper and cling to their bias with a strong case of cognitive dissonance much like religious fundamentalism actually. There is empirical evidence that materialistic philosophy is completely false, but yet again cognitive dissonance has its way with people.

Okay, so you are apparently getting telepathic messages concerning other people's psychology from the spirit world also? If not, please provide your reasoning and evidence and psychological expertise supporting your accusations of 'bias'. I seriously doubt you have this expertise as you are not using 'cognitive dissonance' correctly. You can look it up, but cognitive dissonance is the discomfort one feels from holding two conflicting ideas or values or whatnot; it is not something you say that someone else has, they themselves have to say that they are experiencing the discomfort.

Logical and rational!!!!! This is funny when I hear people assume that their world view has monopolized rationality or what is logical.

I didn't hear anyone do that. I just asked you if it made any rational/logical sense to you why people do not believe in the immaterial. I didn't assume anything so I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Logic has very specific set of rules.

Logic does not have just one definition.

There is nothing illogical about a non physical reality or believing in spirits, gods, or other things, nor is it irational.

Is it rational to believe things are true solely based on other people's interpretation of their own personal experience? Do you do that consistently? If you agree that some people must be misinterpreting, then are you really so sure that you cannot be?

Materialists are under another assumption that their world view is more logical and more rational than other premisies, this is an assuming tge conclusion fallacy. Indeed some materialist positions are indeed over certain beliefs, but that not the end of logic or rationality. orbs in pictures are a great case. Obviously their is an easy to tell material explanation. But this is not true for deeper phenomenon and other things even if the materialist wants to explaine away everything with their brand brand of philosophy.

I don't think I want to really go much further concerning 'materialism', but despite your own presumptions I don't take materialism as an assumption, I've taken it tentatively as a conclusion.

It would not be the most ground breaking discovery in history. It's already been discovered ages ago. Well over 80-90% of the world already accepts that a non physical reality exists albeit not necessarily through critical thinking much like many materialists. ( note: I'm not using band wagon logic I'm only pointing out that materialists right or wrong are in the minority)

Really? Not sure where you live, but has this discovery of the spirit world managed to make it into your school curriculum yet? Ha, I'm not going to brag about the US education system, but it sure is a curious omission that this discovery was never mentioned. Matter of fact last I knew there was still considerable, and sometimes violent, disagreement on what exactly is going on in this spirit world, but apparently we can be assured that there is one despite this. Or something.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Not sure where you live, but has this discovery of the spirit world managed to make it into your school curriculum yet? Ha, I'm not going to brag about the US education system, but it sure is a curious omission that this discovery was never mentioned.

It wasn't part of the curriculum but in high school a teacher taught us that ESP was a proven scientific fact. I now believe she had mistakenly thought that the unbelievably uncontrolled ESP experiments that took place in the 70's were actually science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Paranormal" covers a lot, Felix; ghosts, demons, aliens, psychic powers etc. but a thread like this is overdue. Since I got here, we can't have a thread without somebody derailing it into a debate. I often see claims that science doesn't bother researching life after death because it's a medieval concept but...

http://www.psycholog...idence-says-yes

Ah....evidence suggests the soul exists.

C'mon now skeptics, let's not push our own beliefs and ignore important evidence..

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thousands of people all over the world have had stories to tell about paranormal. why is it that people don't see ghost demons ect. to be a natural thing off this world. what makes it to be a bad thing or a good thing for a start. you say where is the evidence. but when a photo or a film is posted the first thing skeptics say is bu#%sh*%. the only time you will be satisfied is when it happened's to you. us human are only new to this world and we are still learning new things every day. plus science is a method but they also have made a lot of mistakes in the past. but you cant put aside the possibility of paranormal existing. by the way how do you know that its a dragon in your garage when its invincible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But predominance of absence of evidence is reasonable grounds for a conclusion until evidence is discovered that contradicts this conclusion. That's because there are a finite number of things that exist yet there is an infinite number of things that don't exist.

And as we're trying to tell you, a proper hypothesis must be falsifiable. "Prove that something doesn't exist" is not falsifiable therefore it is not a valid hypothesis in the Scientific Method. Until you understand that, don't try to pass your argument as being scientific.

http://itthing.com/c...ory-time-travel

What happened to there being nothing to support the belief in the paranormal?

Conclusions based on absense of evidence are based on deductive thinking or opinions, not facts.. Therefor one cannot present these as facts, and as I am asking for facts one cannot present an opinion as an answer to my question.

Falsifiability was one person's requirement of a hypothesis, this person existed in the 20th century and their personal belief was not adopted as an official part of the Scientific Method.

We are still arguing semantics. If someone asks me to prove that my wallet does not exist in my pocket I would simply empty my pocket while recording the data.

(Thus ruling out the possibility of the wallet actually being there, which would then provide an answer as to whether or not my wallet exists in my pocket)

If someone says prove that the paranormal does not exist, all you have to do is prove that their is no possibility of such a thing existing.

(It has already been claimed as fact that it does not exist so why is this hard? Simply show us the experiment where the possibility was ruled out)

Go ahead, I will wait. Oh and for the record, it's highly coincidental that the belief in something requires scientific proof but the disbelief in the same does not require such..

Edited by xFelix
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are encountering the expanding arguments phenomenon here forgive me if it's difficult to keep up on my little iPhone. There are some good points here.... But.

Perception and memory are not at all perfect, and I can provide loads of scientific evidence to support this.

Of course they are not, and I have looked at all that evidence, have you. If you actually pay attention to the studies you would see the silly notions of scientists finding little cognitive gaps in the way people perceive things and applying them to the data set as a whole is completely fallacious. for example the god helmet... What a silly notion it is to stimulate the part of the brain associated with a 'presence' and when the person experiences a 'presence' to then say... See their presences are not real. Of course they are real. The only thing demonstrated was that some CAN feel an artificial presence, it says nothing about the reason for it happening. Talk about cognitive gaps. It's completely asinine to assume that because something can happen that it always does.

But let's start applying some of the attributes of the evidence for the paranormal to the scenario, and feel free to say if you disagree with any of the analogies I'm making.  What if I told someone that we met and they were interested in knowing more about what you have to say; in this reality I would tell them to join UM and search for your posts, but there is no analogy for that when analyzing paranormal evidence, plenty of people have gone to places where ghosts supposedly were after the fact and found nothing.  So it's like me telling someone I met you but I can produce no other evidence that you actually exist or did exist

Your examples are fine, the problem is that there are a range of phenomenon... Some of which in my eyes have no credibility, others I have become certain of. You are committing the same fallacy here you are assuming one bit of data fits all. Seeing ghosts in a haunted house is orders different than say NDEs. Also, with practice, Its entirely possible for you to go into the spirit world and wittness what others have. Millions actually... my ancestry is full of native Americans who have done, and I tutor people right here on um myself With some success. If you are not willing to read the book how can you possibly be educated?. How do you know what it's like to run a marathon if you don't train for it? If there is an avenue of discovery, but all you do is turn your nose to it and say "not possible", what can you possibly learn when your hat is hung on one brand of philosophy.

I didn't hear anyone do that.  I just asked you if it made any rational/logical sense to you why people do not believe in the immaterial.  I didn't assume anything so I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Il have to look back, I may have projected that onto you from others with similar arguments, but spiritual benefits are constantly being labeled as irrational and illogical when in fact they are not. Of course it does as I mentioned this is when people get lazy. Religious and materialist alike. Materialism is no longer a valid scientific view as prooven by quantum mechanics. There absolutely is imaterial framework giving rise to what we experience as material. Hands down slam dunk it's proving beyond any doubt. this is what I mean by cognative dissonance. A materialist will look the evidence square in the face and dance around it any way they can because they have so much invested in their works view. They are uncomfortable with it. They deni it totally and will even ignore it. This is what happens in cults when a cult leader goes to far yet the followed still follow despite knowing its wrong. It is at least the way I have seen the term used.

I realize you don't want to get into it, but it is at the crux of the matter.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I don't think I want to really go much further concerning 'materialism', but despite your own presumptions I don't take materialism as an assumption, I've taken it tentatively as a conclusion.

And here in lies part of the problem. Though you say "tentatively" ( a sensible precaution), you are approaching the problem backwards. You cannot have a conclusion in mind when you approach a problem it places a set of goggles on you that is difficult to take off. Our beliefs are built upon experiences no matter what, if you are whereing thick goggles and come face to face with something you are going to filter it. It works both ways of course, but why not not have a conclusion and take in all the available information. This is not what happens. Materialist hang their hats on one philosophical conclusion, so a spirit can grab them by the ankles a yank them right out of their body ( this happens by the way) and the only conclusion is it was a hallucination because these things are impossible. They then seek the help of a doctor who has never had the experience and is very well trained ( and rightly so ) and indoctrinated into materialism. Do you not see the problem here.

As for the rest....

The discovery was made by shaman ages ago, it's not in the primary school system because it's a difficult and touchy subject, but rest assured it is in the cariculum of higher education where it belongs, you can probably sign up for a class at your local JC. Religions fight over doctrine not what happens in the spirit world most of them have doctrine and scare tactics to not empower people to discover for themselves.

I probably missed a few things I'm in a rush.... :D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conclusions based on absense [sic] of evidence are based on deductive thinking or opinions, not facts.. Therefor one cannot present these as facts, and as I am asking for facts one cannot present an opinion as an answer to my question.

Does gravity work? We have not found a case where gravity didn't work but by your logic, this absence of evidence is not enough to conclude that gravity works.

Falsifiability was one person's requirement of a hypothesis, this person existed in the 20th century and their personal belief was not adopted as an official part of the Scientific Method.

By all means, go ahead and do your version of "science" with unfalsifiable hypothesizes and see how much knowledge you gain from your experiments. If an experiment can't have a true or false outcome, that undermines the very point of the Scientific Method.

If someone says prove that the paranormal does not exist, all you have to do is prove that their [sic] is no possibility of such a thing existing.

Which, as we've said over and over, is impossible.

(It has already been claimed as fact that it does not exist so why is this hard? Simply show us the experiment where the possibility was ruled out)

What in God's Holy Strawman do you keep referring to??? No one has ever claimed that the paranormal doesn't exist much less claimed to have proved it!!!

Go ahead, I will wait. Oh and for the record, it's highly coincidental that the belief in something requires scientific proof but the disbelief in the same does not require such..

The absence of belief is not disbelief. Science is based on probabilities. It is very likely that gravity will continue to work. The electrical charge of an electron is probably going to stay the same. We have no proof of these things but a preponderance of experimental evidence has made us conclude these facts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What in God's Holy Strawman do you keep referring to??? No one has ever claimed that the paranormal doesn't exist much less claimed to have proved it!!!

The absence of belief is not disbelief. Science is based on probabilities. It is very likely that gravity will continue to work. The electrical charge of an electron is probably going to stay the same. We have no proof of these things but a preponderance of experimental evidence has made us conclude these facts.

What am I referring to?

Next time don't walk into that wardrobe...

guess our intergalactic cousins've got fed up with boring out cow's asses & abducting cletus 'n his friends.....

:-)

The ones who " say " it is in the head have proof, facts, and backed up facts from the Medical Profession.

The ones who say it is real have nothing but claims.

An experience is a wholly subjective episode, based solely on the observation of whomever witnesses the event. Understanding of an unexplained experience can only be gained through one of two methods. Faith or fact. Faith too, is subjective. Facts are merely an agreed upon explanation until such a time as it is disproved or improved, yes?

Etc.. Etc... Etc....

disbelief - the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

Courtesy: http://dictionary.re...e/disbelief?s=t

So yes, the absence of belief is disbelief.

Dang this evidence proving that the paranormal is fake must be top secret, nobody wants to present it.. Even though many come to the conclusion that it is not real, and even go as far as being condescending to those who do believe it to exist....

Always an excuse and a reason as to why someone can't prove something to not exist.. Weird.

If you make a claim that something is not real, prove that it is not. Otherwise you are just as right as the person saying that it is real without being able to prove that it is. The difference is believers in the paranormal don't routinely crash skeptic discussions making a mockery of the skeptic point of view, while skeptics seem to love invading subjects of which they don't believe in and using sarcasm as a weapon to mock and humiliate all those who are not skeptical with them.

Edited by xFelix
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to your statement, many things that people believe to be paranormal actually have a possibility of existing, but none of this can be proven?

(These are the grounds by which most believers justify their beliefs by the way, there is a possibility they are right...)

Oh I see, so what about the verifiable evidence people keep saying they have that proves that these things absolutely do not exist?

(These are the grounds by which most skeptics tend to condescend onto believers...)

Again, not having verifiable evidence is not proper grounds for a conclusion. For one to arrive at a proper scientific conclusion one must absolutely prove their hypothesis true or false. Blank is not true or false. If one cannot arrive at true, one must then attempt to prove false, if they cannot prove false they must then settle for an inconclusive finding. This is how scientific method works.

By the way if we were to jump in a time capsule and I took you back 10 years and you said the same about Greenland Sharks you'd feel horrified at the thought that 10 years later it would be another thing that could be real, that was later proven to be real... Oh and for the record, there was also no reason to believe a Greenland Shark could exist because sharks do not thrive in waters that cold.. Until now. (And that's talking about an actual animal that doesn't exist in another dimension)

Yet we are still arguing semantics, show me the proof conclusively saying none of this exists. I don't want people to argue that there is a possibility it doesn't exist, or there are more logical things to believe in..(Because I agree, there is a possibility some of this doesn't exist, and there are more logical things to believe in, but my experiences tell me otherwise) There are countless threads where people say these things absolutely do not exist, and they have proof to back up their claims.. Present THAT.

This is so utterly wrong I am not even sure where to start. For one, it is not a hypothesis that something doesn't exist. That is a negative statement and could be a null hypothesis to ultimately prove something indeed does exists, but that doesn't seem to be what you are trying to say. You do not need absolute prove in the positive or negative to have proper grounds to make a conclusion. If that was the case than nothing would ever move forward. Science is not out to prove the truth and the absolute truth is never reached. You can aproach it very close, but there is always room for new information. Just because some things exists that were once thought not to exist does not prove anything other than that when new information, reliable information is provided scientific understanding changes in accordance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the notorious all knowing skeptics sure are quiet...

Still evidence suggesting an immortal soul ignored!

Guess the truth really does hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep the thread simple, show me proof the Paranormal doesn't exist. Use verifiable sources, and if you're not an actual doctor don't make diagnostic theories you are not qualified to make.

James Randi has been offering people a million dollars to do the same thing. If it was out there, I have a feeling he would know before anyone on this thread.

Still has his millions dollars though. And many failures who claim they were cheated, but they do not seem to be able to prove that lol.

Challenge Info pdf_button.png printButton.png emailButton.png Static Written by JREF Staff million_lg.gif

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

Click here to see the application.

Click here to see the current $1 million statement which shows the current amount in our prize account.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Log of Applicants

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James Randi has been offering people a million dollars to do the same thing. If it was out there, I have a feeling he would know before anyone on this thread.

Still has his millions dollars though. And many failures who claim they were cheated, but they do not seem to be able to prove that lol.

Challenge Info pdf_button.png printButton.png emailButton.png Static Written by JREF Staff million_lg.gif

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

Click here to see the application.

Click here to see the current $1 million statement which shows the current amount in our prize account.

Frequently Asked Questions

The Log of Applicants

"If the Prize is awarded, this would not mean that the JREF acknowledges the existence of the supernatural."

It seems you don't even understand the nature of the experiments...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

James Randi has been offering people a million dollars to do the same thing. If it was out there, I have a feeling he would know before anyone on this thread.

Is a publicity gimmick. You would not even know who James Randi is without it.

Brilliant marketing actually.

Edited by Seeker79
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are encountering the expanding arguments phenomenon here forgive me if it's difficult to keep up on my little iPhone. There are some good points here.... But.

And Seeker also said:

It's completely asinine to assume that because something can happen that it always does.

You are committing the same fallacy here you are assuming one bit of data fits all.

If there is an avenue of discovery, but all you do is turn your nose to it and say "not possible", what can you possibly learn when your hat is hung on one brand of philosophy.

A materialist will look the evidence square in the face and dance around it any way they can because they have so much invested in their works view. They are uncomfortable with it

This is what happens in cults when a cult leader goes to far yet the followed still follow despite knowing its wrong.

you are approaching the problem backwards. You cannot have a conclusion in mind when you approach a problem it places a set of goggles on you that is difficult to take off.

They then seek the help of a doctor who has never had the experience and is very well trained and indoctrinated into materialism.

You seem much more interested in talking about the assumptions that you have assumed (ha) that I have made rather than what I'm actually saying. I'd go with expanding arguments phenomenon, if they follow what is being discussed, over the expanding strawmen phenomenon any day.

Of course they are not, and I have looked at all that evidence, have you. If you actually pay attention to the studies you would see the silly notions of scientists finding little cognitive gaps in the way people perceive things and applying them to the data set as a whole is completely fallacious. for example the god helmet... What a silly notion it is to stimulate the part of the brain associated with a 'presence' and when the person experiences a 'presence' to then say... See their presences are not real. Of course they are real. The only thing demonstrated was that some CAN feel an artificial presence, it says nothing about the reason for it happening. Talk about cognitive gaps. It's completely asinine to assume that because something can happen that it always does.

I agree that is asinine, haven't seen any scientists do it though. And I seriously doubt that you have the expertise to evaluate studies on cognition.

Seeing ghosts in a haunted house is orders different than say NDEs.

Well in a fairly fundamental way they are not orders different, neither has been demonstrated or shown to actually be 'real' as far as a spirit world existing, despite people interpreting their experiences that way.

If you are not willing to read the book how can you possibly be educated?.

What book, what are you talking about?

If there is an avenue of discovery, but all you do is turn your nose to it and say "not possible", what can you possibly learn when your hat is hung on one brand of philosophy.

Thankfully I never said that so as is becoming all too common, you are talking to the LG that exists in your head. Why is it so difficult to actually respond to what I said rather than acting like I'm biased against the immaterial? I'm 'biased' against the immaterial to the same degree you are biased against leprechauns, and for the exact same reasons.

Il have to look back, I may have projected that onto you from others with similar arguments, but spiritual benefits are constantly being labeled as irrational and illogical when in fact they are not.

I think terminology is important; I haven't heard of anyone saying that spiritual 'benefits' are irrational or illogical, just that the idea that these 'benefits' are actually derived from a spirit world may be irrational. People can and do derive benefits from falsehoods.

Of course it does as I mentioned this is when people get lazy. Religious and materialist alike. Materialism is no longer a valid scientific view as prooven by quantum mechanics. There absolutely is imaterial framework giving rise to what we experience as material. Hands down slam dunk it's proving beyond any doubt. this is what I mean by cognative dissonance. A materialist will look the evidence square in the face and dance around it any way they can because they have so much invested in their works view. They are uncomfortable with it. They deni it totally and will even ignore it. This is what happens in cults when a cult leader goes to far yet the followed still follow despite knowing its wrong. It is at least the way I have seen the term used.

How about we stop pretending that we can psychoanalyze people we don't really know, and that people who disagree with you are 'uncomfortable' and cultish? If you really need to do that, you should do that after you've actually addressed the detailed arguments. I know I'm verbose in my posts sometimes but I do that for a reason: I try to lay out the specific steps in my thinking so that someone who disagrees with me can say, "LG, I agree with statements 1 and 2, but I think you're wrong on statement 3 and here's why". It helps to establish the groundwork and the agreed-upon points from which differences can be analyzed. You'd apparently prefer to sidestep all that and instead provide your amateur diagnosis of how people who disagree with you are biased in their thinking; I'm not sure you realize that I could provide similar assertions about deficits in your thinking and your biases on this topic but I won't as it's a bad, unevidenced, irrational argument. Unless you really think you can get all that detailed information about people you don't know from a few posts, which is ridiculous.

I realize you don't want to get into it, but it is at the crux of the matter.

http://en.m.wikipedi...tive_dissonance

I don't want to get into a discussion of 'materialism', and you provide a link to cognitive dissonance supporting what I already said about how you are not using that term correctly (although I agree that you are using the term how other people have also used it, incorrectly)?

And here in lies part of the problem. Though you say "tentatively" ( a sensible precaution), you are approaching the problem backwards. You cannot have a conclusion in mind when you approach a problem it places a set of goggles on you that is difficult to take off. Our beliefs are built upon experiences no matter what, if you are whereing thick goggles and come face to face with something you are going to filter it. It works both ways of course, but why not not have a conclusion and take in all the available information. This is not what happens. Materialist hang their hats on one philosophical conclusion, so a spirit can grab them by the ankles a yank them right out of their body ( this happens by the way) and the only conclusion is it was a hallucination because these things are impossible. They then seek the help of a doctor who has never had the experience and is very well trained ( and rightly so ) and indoctrinated into materialism. Do you not see the problem here.

Yes, I do see a very glaring problem: you've basically ignored what I said and continue beating the straw out of something I didn't say. I specifically said I don't take 'materialism' as an assumption and you just provide the above as if I think it is an assumption. A tentative conclusion from the evidence is not the same as an assumption, evidence of a spirit world could come any day; I, and centuries of humanity, have been watching for some good evidence of its actual existence but still not much has been produced yet.

The discovery was made by shaman ages ago, it's not in the primary school system because it's a difficult and touchy subject, but rest assured it is in the cariculum of higher education where it belongs, you can probably sign up for a class at your local JC.

It's not in the primary school system because no spirit world of any sort has ever been shown or demonstrated to actually exist. You can learn about what religions believe, yes, in almost any college, but that doesn't mean it's true; you can learn about Shakespeare too but it doesn't mean that his plays are fully accurate historically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After capturing "orbs" on camera at a healing session that he couldn't explain with dust particles, flash anomalies, water particles etc Professor Heinemann, a researcher for NASA, says:

'There is no doubt in my mind that the orbs may well be one of the most significant "outside of this reality" phenomena mankind has ever witnessed. Until now, there has been a huge amount of anecdotal evidence that the spirit world exists. I believe it's no longer anecdotal. Thanks to digital technology, we can see it for the first time. We are dealing with a non-physical - albeit real - phenomenon.'

(continued) The temptation, of course, is to dismiss such claims as bunkum. Indeed, many of Professor Heinemann's colleagues consider his research to be 'utter flaky nonsense'. And yet a growing number of respectable scientists refuse to write off the possibility that these orbs, which are starting to appear on cameras around the world, just might offer a fascinating glimpse into the unknown. Earlier this year (2007), the world's first conference on orbs took place in Sedona, Arizona, where several scientists controversially stated that they believed orbs were indeed a genuine paranormal phenomenon. Professor William Tiller, a theoretical physicist who spent 35 years researching consciousness and matter at Stanford University in California, reminded the conference that what we see with our physical eyes comprises less then 10 per cent of the known universe. This is because human vision operates only within a limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum. For instance, we cannot see radio waves, which carry huge amounts of information, yet we know they exist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-469849/Is-proof-spirits-DO-exist.html

So much for the notion that no scientists study or believe in a paranormal explanation...will we ignore this also skeptics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You seem much more interested in talking about the assumptions that you have assumed (ha) that I have made rather than what I'm actually saying. I'd go with expanding arguments phenomenon, if they follow what is being discussed, over the expanding strawmen phenomenon any day.

That's because what you are saying is built on assumptions.

I agree that is asinine, haven't seen any scientists do it though. And I seriously doubt that you have the expertise to evaluate studies on cognition.

All do respect LG I do not buy into the religious belief that 'scientific' research can only be evaluated by self proclaimed experts. The common person can make good judgments as well with simple critical thinking. With that said, don't confuse my constant spelling and grammar mistakes with lack of education, im often typing a mile a minute on my iphone, answering emails, monitoring accounts all while going about my day. If you want me to list why I am very qualified to evaluate many kinds of studies, then I will, but I think measuring our shlongs is beyond the scope of the discussion.

Well in a fairly fundamental way they are not orders different, neither has been demonstrated or shown to actually be 'real' as far as a spirit world existing, despite people interpreting their experiences that way.

By whose criteria? You want physical evidence of a non physical reality. Good Luck with that. This is not a straw man . A philosophical materialist/physicalist cannot, by philosophical decree, accept any kind of evidence that is not based upon baryonic matter/energy. There are other kinds of evidence LG. There is a body of evidence that is fairly large, but no one is going to be able to bring back a spirit world rock like you might be able to do with mars. But before you engage me in the conversation, you should arm your self a bit. You should read Susan Blackmore's book where she proposes the dying brain hypothesis, then the rebuttals, then look up the myriad of NDE reports, then the criticisms, then the criticisms of the criticisms. Then look up ongoing experiments on the issue included in the Aware Study on other studies on consciousness. If you have not done this than you have no business offering your opinion as anything other than materialistically biased assumptions.

What book, what are you talking about?

I was not talking about "a book". I was suggesting that you should see for yourself.

Thankfully I never said that so as is becoming all too common, you are talking to the LG that exists in your head. Why is it so difficult to actually respond to what I said rather than acting like I'm biased against the immaterial? I'm 'biased' against the immaterial to the same degree you are biased against leprechauns, and for the exact same reasons.

You act like it. The only information I have to go on is how you present yourself. You argue from materialist position. If you personally are not biased against the immaterial that's fine, but if you are insinuating that there is no immaterial to be biased against because I cant possibly be biased against leprechauns then my point is wholly made, and your goggles are thick indeed. Besides I rather like the little guys. ;)

What is it actually that you want me to respond to that I have not. Why don't you present in in a bullet format and I will respond in the same way. Point by point number by number.

I think terminology is important; I haven't heard of anyone saying that spiritual 'benefits' are irrational or illogical, just that the idea that these 'benefits' are actually derived from a spirit world may be irrational. People can and do derive benefits from falsehoods.

that was a autocomplete error. I meant to say "spiritual Beliefs".

How about we stop pretending that we can psychoanalyze people we don't really know, and that people who disagree with you are 'uncomfortable' and cultish? If you really need to do that, you should do that after you've actually addressed the detailed arguments. I know I'm verbose in my posts sometimes but I do that for a reason: I try to lay out the specific steps in my thinking so that someone who disagrees with me can say, "LG, I agree with statements 1 and 2, but I think you're wrong on statement 3 and here's why". It helps to establish the groundwork and the agreed-upon points from which differences can be analyzed. You'd apparently prefer to sidestep all that and instead provide your amateur diagnosis of how people who disagree with you are biased in their thinking; I'm not sure you realize that I could provide similar assertions about deficits in your thinking and your biases on this topic but I won't as it's a bad, unevidenced, irrational argument. Unless you really think you can get all that detailed information about people you don't know from a few posts, which is ridiculous.

Fair enough I just proposed a solution. Bullets or numbers. point by point. What would you like me to address?

I don't want to get into a discussion of 'materialism', and you provide a link to cognitive supporting what I already said about how you are not using that term correctly (although I agree that you are using the term how other people have also used it, incorrectly)?

Common language is more pertinent than strict definitions. Did you know what I mean? Yes you did. Why worry about semantics? With that said....ugggggg.... I was not using it improperly. You are missing the tree through the forest.

"The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1"

a fundamentalist that receives all kinds of information that their cult leader is wrong will alter or limit their cognition of what is actually there. Materialist that should know better faced with the implications of Various experimental results in quantum mechanics do the same thing. Highly intelligent people creating all kinds of materialistic 'explanations' instead of acknowledging the elephant in the room. I have seen it dozens and dozens of times. All of it is; "adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or in the case of actual evidence: "reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements". I can get into detail if you want, but it should be on a different thread.

Yes, I do see a very glaring problem: you've basically ignored what I said and continue beating the straw out of something I didn't say. I specifically said I don't take 'materialism' as an assumption and you just provide the above as if I think it is an assumption. A tentative conclusion from the evidence is not the same as an assumption, evidence of a spirit world could come any day; I, and centuries of humanity, have been watching for some good evidence of its actual existence but still not much has been produced yet.

Tons have been produced. Its your assumptions that limit you. I know its difficult to see blue through red goggles, the filter prevents it. As I have mentioned, you are waiting for a moon rock to land in your hand when the nature of what we are discussing do no allow for rock like evidence.

It's not in the primary school system because no spirit world of any sort has ever been shown or demonstrated to actually exist. You can learn about what religions believe, yes, in almost any college, but that doesn't mean it's true; you can learn about Shakespeare too but it doesn't mean that his plays are fully accurate historically.

Its not in the primary school system because we have separation from church and state and anything close to spirituality falls under fire. Even group meditations are forbidden because people get touchy about it. The primary school system is not about facts its about indoctrination and citizenry. Why else do you think they teach our children twisted history. From the thanksgiving feast to Hiroshima, facts are NOT apart of primary school. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.

Its not just religions, there are many courses on Asian spiritually, Greek mythology, New age emergence, and Native American Spirituality. Of course it does not mean its real, but it doesn't meant that its not either....Sheesh. As pointed out to you primary school isn't really in the business of reality either.

Anyway. Arguing about arguing is pointless. What do you want me to address in bullet formatting. Maybe that will clear up some issues. ;)

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Courtesy: http://dictionary.re...e/disbelief?s=t

So yes, the absence of belief is disbelief.

Apparently you didn't bother to look at this link or you were not able to understand it. It does not say disbelief is the "absence of belief". Please look at it again.

Disbelief requires "inability" or "refusal" to believe something. We are perfectly willing and able to believe something given evidence that it is true or exists. This is not disbelief by this definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Dang this evidence proving that the paranormal is fake must be top secret, nobody wants to present it..

That's because it doesn't exist and you are the only one in the world who believes it could exist.

Edited by scowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belief disconfirmation paradigm [edit]

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.

An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gives an account of the deepening of cult members' faith following the failure of a cult's prophecy that a UFO landing was imminent. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they alone would survive the Earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident. They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant to resolve reality not meeting their expectations: they believed that the aliens had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word that earth-spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy.[7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a publicity gimmick. You would not even know who James Randi is without it.

]

I saw James Randi many times on the Johnny Carson show in the late 70's and early 80's before he declared the million dollar challenge. It was the first time in my life I heard someone daring to question the existence of ESP, remote viewing, clairvoyance, and other paranormal abilities which I and my friends had been told were scientific facts. I thought he was a grumpy, ignorant, close-minded old man until I borrowed "The Magic of Uri Geller" and "Flim Flam" from the library.

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.