One in five Britons insist their home is haunted

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

I'm not even going to bother with you any longer.

I doubt your control (and mine).

See you next time.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Your quote is trying to imply I started with a religion and then have a zealous desire to make the so-called paranormal fit that. I am saying I did not lead as a religious zealot.

No my quote is stating that people who have religious beliefs like yourself almost always want those religious beliefs to be true.  Zeal is not required.  Your desire for your religious beliefs to be true is implied for example by your use of the word 'purposeless' in relation to atheism/materialism.  After all, whether those are purposeless or not has nothing to do with whether they are true, so it's reasonable to take these comments as you expressing your feelings that you don't want them to be.

[papageorge1]

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No my quote is stating that people who have religious beliefs like yourself almost always want those religious beliefs to be true.  Zeal is not required.  Your desire for your religious beliefs to be true is implied for example by your use of the word 'purposeless' in relation to atheism/materialism.  After all, whether those are purposeless or not has nothing to do with whether they are true, so it's reasonable to take these comments as you expressing your feelings that you don't want them to be.

That 'purposeless' statement was directed as I recall to an OP that was implying that themselves. It isn't quite how I'd describe atheism/materialism.

As to religion, again I would say evidence produces my spiritual beliefs. You are trying to make that vice versa in that I have my spiritual beliefs and I try to shape the evidence to fit that,

[pellinore]

On 10/30/2023 at 12:24 AM, openozy said:

You have to remember most people wouldn't talk about it in conversation for obvious reasons.

What are the reasons? If there was a poltergeist or something in my house, I'd be so excited I'd be telling everyone! I'd also see if I could monetize through a TV or magazine channel too.

For people who can access BBC Sounds, this is an excellent audio series: BBC Radio 4 - The Battersea Poltergeist - The Story of The Battersea Poltergeist

Edited November 2, 2023 by pellinore

[openozy]

7 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Doesn't matter, suggestion isn't isolated. It's memetic. An idea here or there. Something on TV, the internet, even hearsay. Subtle suggestions can become subconscious influences. No matter who you are this happens. 

Suggestions don't throw you upside down into a wall.

[openozy]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

What are the reasons? If there was a poltergeist or something in my house, I'd be so excited I'd be telling everyone! I'd also see if I could monetize through a TV or magazine channel too.

For people who can access BBC Sounds, this is an excellent audio series: BBC Radio 4 - The Battersea Poltergeist - The Story of The Battersea Poltergeist

It's hard enough to get your own head around it and why would other people who didn't see it believe you? People are scared of being labelled crazy or whatever. There is never any proof.

[pellinore]

3 minutes ago, openozy said:

It's hard enough to get your own head around it and why would other people who didn't see it believe you? People are scared of being labelled crazy or whatever. There is never any proof.

If you can access BBC Sounds, you'll like Uncanny, by the same journalist who produced the Battersea Poltergeist. He discusses many of these issues, with interviews with the people who experienced the strange experiences, with paranormal investigators and sceptics chipping in their views. I think most of the series is also posted on YouTube by the BBC.

[openozy]

24 minutes ago, pellinore said:

If you can access BBC Sounds, you'll like Uncanny, by the same journalist who produced the Battersea Poltergeist. He discusses many of these issues, with interviews with the people who experienced the strange experiences, with paranormal investigators and sceptics chipping in their views. I think most of the series is also posted on YouTube by the BBC.

Thanks, might be worth a look but I'm not big on investigators, I believe they are generally not very open and stir things up. I don't watch any of these shows usually.

[pellinore]

9 minutes ago, openozy said:

Thanks, might be worth a look but I'm not big on investigators, I believe they are generally not very open and stir things up. I don't watch any of these shows usually.

I agree, I don't watch ghost hunter or UFO series because I know it is nonsense and sensationalised, but Danny Robins is pretty unbiased and does good research. He is an obvious sceptic but treats people fairly, even the dim paranormal investigator. The Battersea Poltergeist is definitely worth a listen- the production quality and music won awards. 

[esoteric_toad]

On 10/30/2023 at 11:34 AM, papageorge1 said:

The studiers are called ghost investigators. And they do find things they can't explain normally. And then the skeptics will call them quacks or hoaxers. And the game just goes on.

Why then does not the scientific community follow up on the evidence? One thing science needs is repeatability in order to study something. If 20 percent of the houses where truly haunted (heck 1 percent would work) it would seem there would be plenty to study in a systematic way to gather evidence. 

And please do not say that the scientific community is too rigid (too orthodox) and quick to dismiss this sort of thing. If someone or some organization could prove that there is an afterlife or that these things are somehow psychically affixed to an area they would likely be Nobel Prize contenders. 

It hasn't happened because there is simply nothing there. Wishful thinking, thrill seeking and a fear of no afterlife drive the belief in ghosts. JMO of course.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, esoteric_toad said:

Why then does not the scientific community follow up on the evidence? One thing science needs is repeatability in order to study something. If 20 percent of the houses where truly haunted (heck 1 percent would work) it would seem there would be plenty to study in a systematic way to gather evidence. 

And please do not say that the scientific community is too rigid (too orthodox) and quick to dismiss this sort of thing. If someone or some organization could prove that there is an afterlife or that these things are somehow psychically affixed to an area they would likely be Nobel Prize contenders. 

It hasn't happened because there is simply nothing there. Wishful thinking, thrill seeking and a fear of no afterlife drive the belief in ghosts. JMO of course.

Most of the scientific community is far removed from these subjects. Those that are interested are parapsychologists and paranormal investigators. 
 

I’d say the main issue is that the spiritual realms are not in dimensions detectable by our physical senses and instruments. The best progress at this time requires those gifted with clairvoyance. But that’s so unscientific. And there we sit.

JMO

[Antigonos]

7 hours ago, pellinore said:

What are the reasons? If there was a poltergeist or something in my house, I'd be so excited I'd be telling everyone! I'd also see if I could monetize through a TV or magazine channel too.

For people who can access BBC Sounds, this is an excellent audio series: BBC Radio 4 - The Battersea Poltergeist - The Story of The Battersea Poltergeist

In his classic 1945 book Poltergeists over England, Harry Price devotes a chapter to Battersea. An interesting story.

Edited November 3, 2023 by Antigonos

[+Liquid Gardens]

17 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

As to religion, again I would say evidence produces my spiritual beliefs. You are trying to make that vice versa in that I have my spiritual beliefs and I try to shape the evidence to fit that,

No.  I don't understand why you can't understand a simple statement that I've said to you twice now, it's unfortunately yet more evidence that you are not the 'fair' observer you believe yourself to be and upon which your entire argument for the paranormal 'sits'.  It doesn't matter whether you think your religious beliefs are supported by evidence, again, it's that you want them to be true.  You want consciousness to persist after our death, you want this reality to involve mysterious powers, that's understandable and common, but sometimes people's desires for what they want to be true affects their 'fair' evaluation of the evidence.  This desire would explain why your belief is so strong despite how weak and sketchy the evidence base (anecdotes) and the argumentation is.

Of course anyone could be affected by this also, but I don't have any religious beliefs and don't have any desire that the paranormal not be real.  I just have disappointment that the grandiose claims of near certainty about some of this is accompanied, as it always has been, by such poor evidence and reasoning upon investigation.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

No.  I don't understand why you can't understand a simple statement that I've said to you twice now, it's unfortunately yet more evidence that you are not the 'fair' observer you believe yourself to be and upon which your entire argument for the paranormal 'sits'.  It doesn't matter whether you think your religious beliefs are supported by evidence, again, it's that you want them to be true.  You want consciousness to persist after our death, you want this reality to involve mysterious powers, that's understandable and common, but sometimes people's desires for what they want to be true affects their 'fair' evaluation of the evidence.  This desire would explain why your belief is so strong despite how weak and sketchy the evidence base (anecdotes) and the argumentation is.

Of course anyone could be affected by this also, but I don't have any religious beliefs and don't have any desire that the paranormal not be real.  I just have disappointment that the grandiose claims of near certainty about some of this is accompanied, as it always has been, by such poor evidence and reasoning upon investigation.

Cutting to the chase is that we disagree about the depth and quality of the accumulation of paranormal evidence. I believe it is robust and of multiple independent types. I disagree with your 'weak and sketchy' assertion. 

Now getting to your psychological assessment of believers versus non-believers. I do agree that a believer's position is a more positive and life-affirming belief system. So, you argue that this makes me biased towards belief in the paranormal evidence. Let me say I prefer truth over comfort. But nobody can be perfect, and I do question myself on that very question (that my bias gets in the way). My most honest thoughts is that I have immersed myself in the evidence more than 99% of the population and in my most honest moments I feel I this evidence is robust and cannot be dismissed.

Now psychologizing in the other direction. I think there is the tendency in some personality types to understand the preferable nature of the believer's position but the dread of belief being punctured by science for instance overwhelms their ability for a fair assessment of the data. 'Extreme Caution' is a defense mechanism against disappointment.

In the end, I feel if anyone studies the data long enough and fair enough, most rational people would come to the same conclusions as me. I think this entire field is sadly understudied and put into the category of fringe information.

 

[Hankenhunter]

On 11/2/2023 at 11:35 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

No my quote is stating that people who have religious beliefs like yourself almost always want those religious beliefs to be true.  Zeal is not required.  Your desire for your religious beliefs to be true is implied for example by your use of the word 'purposeless' in relation to atheism/materialism.  After all, whether those are purposeless or not has nothing to do with whether they are true, so it's reasonable to take these comments as you expressing your feelings that you don't want them to be.

Spirituality, and religiosity are two different things.

[+Liquid Gardens]

5 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Spirituality, and religiosity are two different things.

Sure, but on this point I think they are similar, people who are 'spiritual' want their spirituality to be true just like people with religious beliefs.

[Piney]

8 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Spirituality, and religiosity are two different things.

Not when it's hardened into a doctrine that doesn't budge. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 11/3/2023 at 12:21 PM, papageorge1 said:

My most honest thoughts is that I have immersed myself in the evidence more than 99% of the population and in my most honest moments I feel I this evidence is robust and cannot be dismissed.

In the end, I feel if anyone studies the data long enough and fair enough, most rational people would come to the same conclusions as me. I think this entire field is sadly understudied and put into the category of fringe information.

Problem is you can't explain how the process of immersing yourself in this evidence (i.e., stories) has strengthened the case for the paranormal.  The die was pretty much cast in one of the first questions I ever asked you:  what are the best pieces of evidence for the paranormal?  You didn't really have any, none of the individual stories is that compelling but you assert that somehow by reading more and more of these unverified stories it becomes more believable.  Not being able to answer questions about the best evidence puts the paranormal outside of everything else we accept as true, which is of course a big red flag.

I think what you call 'studying data' is more accurately called 'reading unverified stories'.  To tie this into the OP, what is your takeaway from 20% of Britons thinking their house is haunted?  Is that an example of 'data' that you believe to be in favor of the paranormal existing?

[XenoFish]

11 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Spirituality, and religiosity are two different things.

One's personal the other cultural. Till one person's spirituality becomes a codified religion.

Edited November 6, 2023 by XenoFish

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Problem is you can't explain how the process of immersing yourself in this evidence (i.e., stories) has strengthened the case for the paranormal.  The die was pretty much cast in one of the first questions I ever asked you:  what are the best pieces of evidence for the paranormal?  You didn't really have any, none of the individual stories is that compelling but you assert that somehow by reading more and more of these unverified stories it becomes more believable.  Not being able to answer questions about the best evidence puts the paranormal outside of everything else we accept as true, which is of course a big red flag.

To me, basing your belief upon a couple individual cases would be a weak foundation pillar for spiritual belief. I want thousands of pillars as a good foundation. So, I personally had a 100% experience, but it shouldn't be 100% to anyone else. I have heard in decades hundreds of cases of different genres of phenomena that provide foundation for my position from veridical Near Death Experiences, reincarnation memories, sprit visits, communication from the deceased under controlled conditions and etcetera that all point to the teachings of some established traditions I have come to respect.

So, it is not true that there are no stories, experiments and investigations that are compelling to me. I understand how any experience, investigation or experiment can be argued into infinity by a determined person and I guess I got burned out over that phase. I could easily play the skeptic role myself by now and argue any evidence for an eternity, but I got to ask myself 'who is most interested in being fair with the full accumulation of evidence'. 

35 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think what you call 'studying data' is more accurately called 'reading unverified stories'.  To tie this into the OP, what is your takeaway from 20% of Britons thinking their house is haunted?  Is that an example of 'data' that you believe to be in favor of the paranormal existing?

It is in favor of the paranormal existing as some pretty intelligent and rational people mut be among them and many of those have their own stories they find compelling. It's in favor but wouldn't be enough on its own to seal my belief.

[XenoFish]

On 11/2/2023 at 6:21 PM, openozy said:

Suggestions don't throw you upside down into a wall.

That is just a story though. It may have been something you claim to happen. Yet there isn't anything else to back it up. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

33 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

To me, basing your belief upon a couple individual cases would be a weak foundation pillar for spiritual belief.

That's because the pillars for spiritual belief are so weak.  One petri dish showing that bacteria won't grow and is being killed when in proximity to Penicillium mold is a greater pillar for the fact that antibiotics can treat infections than the sum total of all of the pillars for spiritual belief.  So, again, unlike the method you propose for the paranormal where reviewing more and more anecdotes somehow makes it more credible, there are many truths that do not require your approach in order to make a case.  And I do mean 'require', you can't support the truth of a single anecdote and thus try to resort to this mass-of-anecdotes argument.

38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So, it is not true that there are no stories, experiments and investigations that are compelling to me.

No one said it wasn't compelling to you.  The experts on evidence don't find it compelling though, don't know of any scientific organizations that urge schools to start teaching this compelling case.

40 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I could easily play the skeptic role myself by now and argue any evidence for an eternity, but I got to ask myself 'who is most interested in being fair with the full accumulation of evidence'. 

You should ask yourself, 'why is the full accumulation of evidence required unlike every other truth'?  You don't have to do a genetic survey of every single one of the billions of species on earth in order to find compelling evidence for evolution.

And no, you cannot easily play the skeptic role and argue evidence endlessly.  On the contrary you can't get past the first freakin grade-school-level question:  'how have you verified that the story you read/heard has been truthfully communicated to you'?  This is where you run to the 'my consideration' excuse and 'there it sits', which is the opposite of being able to argue endlessly.

44 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It is in favor of the paranormal existing as some pretty intelligent and rational people mut be among them and many of those have their own stories they find compelling. It's in favor but wouldn't be enough on its own to seal my belief.

Why isn't the fact that, if this were true, there would be 4-5 million households in Britain that are supposedly haunted yet still no one is capable of providing any good evidence for any of them?  That is an enormous number, the fact that no one has any evidence is evidence that large numbers of people, even intelligent ones, can have incorrect beliefs, why doesn't that count as evidence not in favor?

[openozy]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Yet there isn't anything else to back it up. 

Witnesses.

[XenoFish]

4 minutes ago, openozy said:

Witnesses.

Evidence? 

[TashaMarie]

On 11/1/2023 at 11:35 PM, openozy said:

Yeah, I'm not influenced by influencers, leave that to the facebook losers.

However, those who utilise Facebook and other social media platforms to support their paranormal claims have an impact on you.  Some may argue that you have been influenced by their claims and stories.