Ghosts and paranormal activity in ED & PR

[????]

...behind youooooooo.....

[El Pibe]

definition of crass: "adjective - showing no sensitivity"

I submit "If you don't like my comparison with cancer research, then tough." as evidence m'lud

Definition of explanation: "noun - a statement or account that makes something clear"

I submit "If those events are subsequently (even many years later) shown to have had a cause which was not "supernatural", that has no bearing whatsoever on any other unrelated event." as evidence m'lud.

Advice, stop digging.

[Sue]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> definition of crass: "adjective - showing no

> sensitivity"

> I submit "If you don't like my comparison with

> cancer research, then tough." as evidence m'lud

>

> Definition of explanation: "noun - a statement or

> account that makes something clear"

>

> I submit "If those events are subsequently (even

> many years later) shown to have had a cause which

> was not "supernatural", that has no bearing

> whatsoever on any other unrelated event." as

> evidence m'lud.

>

> Advice, stop digging.

xxxxxxx

Yes - that would be my advice to you.

Plus to learn some elementary logic and then to apply it to what you write on here.

[El Pibe]

dig dig dig

[Sue]

Oh FFS.

You can't employ a logical argument, so you resort to personal insults.

Same old, same old.

[Otta]

Personal insults?

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personal insults?

xxxxx

Yes. As opposed to the use of facts.

[fabfor]

You know sometimes this little voice inside is screaming "don't get involved" but you do anyway?

Well, the little voice won today... (But only partly).

[El Pibe]

A thread about ghosts where we only use facts.

* crickets chirruping *

* tumbleweed in flight *

[Jeremy]

People can believe whatever they want for all I care, but what are these "facts"? Surely there's no evidence either way, only personal accounts.

[david_carnell]

Jeremy - that's the issue. Some people don't understand the anecdote vs evidence issue.

[Sue]

a) Some academic research into the subject has (and possibly still is) looking for evidence other than anecdotal.

b) El Pibe's argument:

Event x was thought by a person who experienced it to be paranormal. It was subsequently shown not to be.

Therefore events y and z, also thought by those who experienced them to be paranormal, WILL ALSO subsequently be shown not to be.

Fatal logical flaw.

ETA: And I'm sick of being patronised on here.I have done postgrad research and I'm not stupid.

[Louisa]

Back on topic. Has anyone ever heard the story of the haunted boating lake area in Dulwich Park? Numerous people have mentioned seeing a lady in Victorian clothing walking around the boating lake very early in the mornings. Are there any people locally who have witnessed/heard of other peoples accounts on this particular ALLEGED (for the pedants on here) haunting?

Louisa.

[Jeremy]

I think we can all agree that there has been academic research on the subject, which has yielded no positive results. I think we can also agree that El Pibe's argument, if it were intended to disprove all paranormal observations (which it wasn't), would constitute a faulty generalisation.

We're still left with anecdotes vs grounded cynicism...

[El Pibe]

No love. I've made my arguments quite clear.

That was a hypothetical situation representative of the logic involved.

There is no evidence of supernatural (ghosts, goblins, gods) phenomena.

There is no evidence of paranormal (telekinesis, telepathy, prescience) phenomena.

Therefore any "explanations" of experiences are conjecture, based upon personal feelings and beliefs.

Until anyone provides a shred of evidence then I'll assume the real explanations of any experience to be mundane, based upon physical (or psychogical) reasons.

Take my ghost. I could have said "I know what I've seen and you're all close minded" but my instinct was to question my sanity.

Eventually it was explained perfectly well as as an acute sleep disorder. Bob's your uncle.

Again, until a fact is produced in support you've only your own logical fallacies, and complaints about personal insults (there were none) to fall back on.

So waiting, facts...

[Louisa]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Bob's your uncle.

>

El Pibe - I wish *Bob* was my uncle.

When are you heading off for pastures new?

Louisa.

[Jeremy]

If *Bob* was your uncle, he wouldn't give you sweets. He'd just come round every now and then and make really sarcastic remarks. For instance... "A lady, you say? In old fashioned clothing? Why didn't you say so earlier? Case closed!"

[Louisa]

Jeremy, *Bob* has abandoned us of late. Gone are the days of one of my threads having a "*Bob* sarcasm grenade" chucked in to further wind me up and make me state my case even more firmly. Damn it Janet.

Louisa.

[red devil]

Don't worry, he's in panto, will be back soon...

[El Pibe]

Five weeks louisa.

I'd love to buy you a nice glass of wine or g&t if you pop along to the edt.

I promise not to mention ghosts.

[Ted Max]

Make sure to get Louisa the cheapest wine in the house, El Pibe.

And Louisa, I've never heard of the Victorian lady. Is she just walking around the path, or on the lake itself?

[Otta]

Chislehurst caves is meant to be haunted. I don't believe it but I'd be reluctant to spend a night in there on my own.

[Chick]

Dear Sue,

I posted again because some post were very eccentric. Being insulted by some one who thinks as you do is quite a compliment.

Cheers.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chick Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This whole thread is barking.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Charming as always.

>

> Closed-minded as always.

>

> Prejudiced as always.

>

> :(

>

> ETA: Guess you had to have another dig as nobody

> bothered to comment on your station "joke" on the

> first page?

[fabfor]

Ok, here I go again.

"There is no evidence of paranormal phenomena" someone said. Is that a scientific fact?

[Jeremy]

I think so, fabfor. Would you rather expand on it... e.g. "no conclusive evidence in the public domain"?