Becoming a sceptic.

[Sir_Quack_The_Wack]

Hello,

I have decided that it's best to become a sceptic on the matter of ghosts. I can see now that ghosts just don't exist. I have been to the supposedly most haunted place in the southern hemisphere on many occasions, to find absolutely nothing. I have been there over the past few months, every week. I did catch a photo of something, which turned out to be a fingerprint on the lens.

If this is the most haunted in the SH, and I found nothing, it just showed me that maybe me believing in everything was more ignorant than the sceptics I criticised.

Now, yesterday I went inside for the first time, captured a good 6 minutes of video, but sadly lost 3 minutes by accidental overwriting. Lucky I recorded the cold spot, a spot that also made me feel sick. But I later found that to be because of asbestos, it infests that place - no wonder people "see" ghosts. Heh.

I would upload the video proof that the only weird thing in the day at that house was something completely natural, if the camera I recorded it on could be hooked up to the computer. It is a big old one from the 1980s, I use it because I find the quality is more to my liking. I can hook it up to the TV, so if I could use my DVD recorder to record it and then rip it with the computer...if anyone knows anything about this, please PM me.

Anyway, I just wanted to make this topic because it is a big step for me, and I am known by a few here as Mister Gullible. And to the sceptics I was ever critical of, I apologise.

[NightTrainMurderer]

Lucky I recorded the cold spot, a spot that also made me feel sick. But I later found that to be because of asbestos, it infests that place - no wonder people "see" ghosts. Heh.

I have been in many locations where the asbestos had not yet been abated and have never heard of anyone receive any ill feelings from it. I'm not talking about mesothelioma here, I'm just talking about you being in a building with asbestos and feeling sick. I find that interesting. Do you know if the asbestos is in just the insulation or are there also asbestos tiles etc.

[Sir_Quack_The_Wack]

I have been in many locations where the asbestos had not yet been abated and have never heard of anyone receive any ill feelings from it. I'm not talking about mesothelioma here, I'm just talking about you being in a building with asbestos and feeling sick. I find that interesting. Do you know if the asbestos is in just the insulation or are there also asbestos tiles etc.

Yes, I found it odd that I got a reaction, only in that spot too. But it's only rational to think that because on part of the building has been closed and is being fixed of asbestos, that other spots would have it too.

It was situated right next to a window, and certain windows were fireproofed for escape, which back in those days was done using asbestos.

[Pauly Dangerously]

Yes, I found it odd that I got a reaction, only in that spot too. But it's only rational to think that because on part of the building has been closed and is being fixed of asbestos, that other spots would have it too.

It was situated right next to a window, and certain windows were fireproofed for escape, which back in those days was done using asbestos.

The thing about cold spots and the "sick" feelings, is that these happen to us in our daily lives, but we focus on them more in a supposedly haunted location. I walked through my own living room last night and got a sick feeling that stopped me dead in my tracks. I had also just eaten Burger King, so that was probably the cause, not a ghost. Pay attention in your own home. Air temperature is not uniform throughout and enclosed space be it a tent or a warehouse. You will feel air temperature differences. But when in a spooky location, and because people have told you that a "cold spot" means something is there, you associate the two.

[Sir_Quack_The_Wack]

The thing about cold spots and the "sick" feelings, is that these happen to us in our daily lives, but we focus on them more in a supposedly haunted location. I walked through my own living room last night and got a sick feeling that stopped me dead in my tracks. I had also just eaten Burger King, so that was probably the cause, not a ghost. Pay attention in your own home. Air temperature is not uniform throughout and enclosed space be it a tent or a warehouse. You will feel air temperature differences. But when in a spooky location, and because people have told you that a "cold spot" means something is there, you associate the two.

Thanks for posting that, yeah, you're right. I didn't think of that.

[Thorn]

I think when you are looking for something you are more apt to find it.

As I type this something fell off the wall of my co-workers cube behind me. No big deal it happens. Had I been here and told it was a haunted floor of this building and it happened I would put it on the evidence side or "possible evidence".

Eating burger king and feeling sick as you said is likely an occurrence everyone feels at some point hence why I don't eat fast food.

I am a skeptic too, one who is wildly curious and fascinated by the topic, I am 37 and spent YEARS looking for proof and I have yet to find it. There has to be a reason for that. Now maybe spirits are here with us, maybe there are ghosts I do not know but as soon as ANYONE on the planet has concrete verifiable proof I would love to see it.

Then I will be a believer.

[aquatus1]

Anyway, I just wanted to make this topic because it is a big step for me, and I am known by a few here as Mister Gullible. And to the sceptics I was ever critical of, I apologise.[/size][/font]

That's all well and good, and I am happy to welcome you to the fold, but don't forget that you can be a skeptic and still believe in ghosts at the same time. Don't feel that one has to be sacrificed for the other.

Just make sure that you know where the division between "I Know" and I Believe" is, and you'll be just fine.

[Pauly Dangerously]

Thanks Aquatus for pointing that out. Skeptic does not mean non-believer. Here's alink for you.

[Irishman]

I have now decided that i am a skeptic also. Based on the skeptic slogan, in the abscence of evidence, its evidence of abscence then no longer will i believe there is any type of life beyond our planet. We've dedicated the most brilliant minds, astonishing unlimited finaces with the most marvellous technolgy and we haven't found ONE thing. Scientists argue that we need to keep looking, we will find it, maybe its because what we're looking for exceeds our technology but keep dedicating trillions of tax payers money to look for something because it's there.

By the same token, those who believe in life after death, morons! We can say this, even though, in comparison, hardly a cent has ever been dedicated to research, brilliant minds have been ridiculed and theory of life after death has far more conclusive evidence than life on other planets.

Im a skeptic too.

[aquatus1]

I have now decided that i am a skeptic also. Based on the skeptic slogan, in the abscence of evidence, its evidence of abscence then no longer will i believe there is any type of life beyond our planet. We've dedicated the most brilliant minds, astonishing unlimited finaces with the most marvellous technolgy and we haven't found ONE thing. Scientists argue that we need to keep looking, we will find it, maybe its because what we're looking for exceeds our technology but keep dedicating trillions of tax payers money to look for something because it's there.

By the same token, those who believe in life after death, morons! We can say this, even though, in comparison, hardly a cent has ever been dedicated to research, brilliant minds have been ridiculed and theory of life after death has far more conclusive evidence than life on other planets.

Im a skeptic too.

Not a very good one. I'm pretty sure it stems from this: "Based on the skeptic slogan, in the abscence of evidence, its evidence of abscence". There's no such slogan among skeptics. To a skeptic, absence of evidence means precisely that; there is an absence of evidence. Conclusions follow from that. Similarly, when there is a preponderance of evidence, it means that there is a lot of evidence. Conclusions follow from that as well.

[Paranormalcy]

I agree there is no black and white hard division of "skeptic/believer", there are people here who post the most hard-line debunking of every thread topic, but then posts as a convinced witness in one of the other forums here. It is this either-or mentality that really detracts from the point of interest for everyone; research and discussion of paranormal topics - it is not one-upsmanship, being "right" or providing more evidence or proof than someone else - it is discovery, from interaction and sharing of information and discussion and being able to see flaws in one's own ideas, things overlooked or misinterpreted, etc. as well as being able to provide alternate points of view for other people.

Myself for example, I "believe in ghosts", because there is enough historical evidence that "ghost phenomena" occurs - it is what the NATURE of of a ghost is, that is in question for me. I don't believe they are spirits or demons or any other intelligent entity. That doesn't mean I claim to know, or can explain or prove what they ARE, or what they aren't, but only to demonstrate from which direction I'm approaching the subject, the "theory" (hypothesis really) I'm going on as a basis for comparison and contrast - to see how much "fits" and how much doesn't, how many reports and personal and acquaintance accounts seem genuine, versus hoaxes, misinterpretations, etc.

One doesn't have to change anything but a minor adjustment to mindset, to add a healthy dose of skepticism into their tools they use on the subject - just more critical thinking and being aware of potential mundane counterparts to paranormal claims is one of the important developments.

[ellerja]

unless you see an apperiton,spirit,ghost than you will not believe in them.ive seen one when i was small and another person had this same experience and he was a lot older than me and saw it at a different time than me.my wife doent believe either.so it will be just a dirt nap for here no sense in going to church right?

[Agent. Mulder]

unless you see an apperiton,spirit,ghost than you will not believe in them.ive seen one when i was small and another person had this same experience and he was a lot older than me and saw it at a different time than me.my wife doent believe either.so it will be just a dirt nap for here no sense in going to church right?

...what?

[Irishman]

I agree there is no black and white hard division of "skeptic/believer", there are people here who post the most hard-line debunking of every thread topic, but then posts as a convinced witness in one of the other forums here. It is this either-or mentality that really detracts from the point of interest for everyone; research and discussion of paranormal topics - it is not one-upsmanship, being "right" or providing more evidence or proof than someone else - it is discovery, from interaction and sharing of information and discussion and being able to see flaws in one's own ideas, things overlooked or misinterpreted, etc. as well as being able to provide alternate points of view for other people.

Myself for example, I "believe in ghosts", because there is enough historical evidence that "ghost phenomena" occurs - it is what the NATURE of of a ghost is, that is in question for me. I don't believe they are spirits or demons or any other intelligent entity. That doesn't mean I claim to know, or can explain or prove what they ARE, or what they aren't, but only to demonstrate from which direction I'm approaching the subject, the "theory" (hypothesis really) I'm going on as a basis for comparison and contrast - to see how much "fits" and how much doesn't, how many reports and personal and acquaintance accounts seem genuine, versus hoaxes, misinterpretations, etc.

One doesn't have to change anything but a minor adjustment to mindset, to add a healthy dose of skepticism into their tools they use on the subject - just more critical thinking and being aware of potential mundane counterparts to paranormal claims is one of the important developments.

You know i've read a few of your posts on here and i dont mean to *** kiss, but they're alll very well written and exactly kind of person who should have moderator stauts. A fair and balanced individual and not pathological either way, if only our world was like such. I believe extremeists on either side do neiher argument any good. Thank you for the intelligent response

[Irishman]

Not a very good one. I'm pretty sure it stems from this: "Based on the skeptic slogan, in the abscence of evidence, its evidence of abscence". There's no such slogan among skeptics. To a skeptic, absence of evidence means precisely that; there is an absence of evidence. Conclusions follow from that. Similarly, when there is a preponderance of evidence, it means that there is a lot of evidence. Conclusions follow from that as well.

That slogan was and still is the slogan of the Enlightened peoples organisation whose intent is to erase any mention of metaphysical and morph into a world where only science can provide explanations for our questions.

[aquatus1]

That slogan was and still is the slogan of the Enlightened peoples organisation whose intent is to erase any mention of metaphysical and morph into a world where only science can provide explanations for our questions.

Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. Frankly, you sound a little bitter.

The only "Enlightened" people I'm aware of are quite into the metaphysical. By it's nature, being Enlightened is a spiritual pursuit. This does not preclude them being skeptics, but it most certainly does not allow for them being close-minded. And it has little to do with science.

Skepticism has less to do with science than it does with formal logic. If you believe that skepticism is some sort of personal philosophy that has some sort of defined mission such as eradication any sort of belief system, you are falling victim to your own accusations.

[Irishman]

Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. Frankly, you sound a little bitter.

The only "Enlightened" people I'm aware of are quite into the metaphysical. By it's nature, being Enlightened is a spiritual pursuit. This does not preclude them being skeptics, but it most certainly does not allow for them being close-minded. And it has little to do with science.

Skepticism has less to do with science than it does with formal logic. If you believe that skepticism is some sort of personal philosophy that has some sort of defined mission such as eradication any sort of belief system, you are falling victim to your own accusations.

The enlightened peoples outlook was a self dubbed name given to the secular ethos, whilst never an official title it was one they bestowed upon themselves in this 20th century movement. This ethos is now taught in schools, colleges and all other academic platforms as fact, when it absolutely is not at least not any more verifiable than devine worship.

For the record, i dont go to church, i have no affiliation to any religion, in fact i would quite agree that church has done spirituality quite a bit of damage over the years and is an easy target for any skeptic.

Formal logic is quite a loose term however. Formal logic would dictate that many scientific fruitless pursuits are waste of time and money however no-one dare question scientific direction for fear of intellectual reprimand.

I am absolutely not bitter but science's denigration of metaphysics is a mixture of predjudice, ego, some relevant points and deliberately perpetuated myth.

[Paranormalcy]

It's not a denigration, it's revealing that there is no valid proof of metaphysical claims, with our current sciences and understanding of the world and how things work, and burden of proof is on extraordinary claims, not established and accepted facts. There is no "agenda" other than intellectual honesty and educating others on our current knowledge of what is "real", what has been discovered, and that for which no evidential proof exists.

[aquatus1]

The enlightened peoples outlook was a self dubbed name given to the secular ethos, whilst never an official title it was one they bestowed upon themselves in this 20th century movement. This ethos is now taught in schools, colleges and all other academic platforms as fact, when it absolutely is not at least not any more verifiable than devine worship.

This sounds like a rather long version of "This I Believe!"

I can do it too: "You are wrong!"

But that doesn't get us too far into a discussion.

For the record, i dont go to church, i have no affiliation to any religion, in fact i would quite agree that church has done spirituality quite a bit of damage over the years and is an easy target for any skeptic.

I would have to disagree. Spirituality is pretty much the only field that I would give the church credit for having done some good.

Anything else...not so much.

Formal logic is quite a loose term however. Formal logic would dictate that many scientific fruitless pursuits are waste of time and money however no-one dare question scientific direction for fear of intellectual reprimand.

Formal Logic is a loose term?

That's a little bit like saying that Trigonometry is a loose term. Sure, it may not describe any one single equation or term, but it is a pretty well defined field, with clear equations and methodology. I can't imagine how you can defend that it isn't a pretty specific field, or how you conclude that Formal Logic would dictate anything. After all, Formal Logic has nothing to do with determining how accurate something is.

I am absolutely not bitter but science's denigration of metaphysics is a mixture of predjudice, ego, some relevant points and deliberately perpetuated myth.

It does sound like you are taking it personally. Three times so far you have defined things in manners that have little to nothing to do with the actual thing. You sound like someone trying to bad-mouth someone you don't like, without ever actually having met them.

[sinewave]

That slogan was and still is the slogan of the Enlightened peoples organisation whose intent is to erase any mention of metaphysical and morph into a world where only science can provide explanations for our questions.

I think you are confusing skepticism with cynicism. While they both may disagree with you, skeptics seek the truth through logic while cynics know it through intuition. Despite years of effort, metaphysics has not garnered any credibility. The absence of supporting evidence is not the fault of science but rather the fault of nature.

Edited November 9, 2009 by sinewave

[candyreddime]

6 minutes of video? And you expect to capture something? Real investigations take hours on end

[sinewave]

6 minutes of video? And you expect to capture something? Real investigations take hours on end

Heck, even pretend investigators do that.

[behaviour???]

i became a skeptic is because not it is easy but I think that science only can show if ghosts are there and as long as science is unable to answer on that matter I think it is highly unreliable to support Ghosts , just like Creationism...They have no Scientific base whatsoever

Thanks

B???

[Black Hound]

I perfer to keep an open mind as to matters of the paranormal. Just because it can't be proved ot disproved either, one should not rule it out completeiy as true or false. I have seen some odd things that I can't explain butt just because I can't explain them didn't mean they didn't exist, I did witnesses them,based on my senses, but will hold off judgement until some better judgement come along.

[sinewave]

I perfer to keep an open mind as to matters of the paranormal. Just because it can't be proved ot disproved either, one should not rule it out completeiy as true or false. I have seen some odd things that I can't explain butt just because I can't explain them didn't mean they didn't exist, I did witnesses them,based on my senses, but will hold off judgement until some better judgement come along.

That is perfectly consistent with being a skeptic. Mundane explanations are always considered first with consideration given to established science in all cases.