Paranormal evidence?

One of the people that I would consider a friend at work is a preacher as well. He once told me a story of the devil wanting jesus to prove that he was truly the son of god. From what I remember the devil told jesus to jump off a mountain, and if jesus was who he claimed to be, god would save him from harm, and that would definitively prove jesus's claim . Jesus basically responded to the devil, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

I understand the message he was conveying to me with this story, and I will not go much into that. It comes to mind now though because I do not see how we as "natural" beings expect to bring "supernatural" things into our perspective using our "natural" methods. It would be like us expecting our creator to play by our rules..?? Our scientific method that people rely on to define what is fact is simply too limited to our perspective of reality to test supernatural and "paranormal" accurately. We simply know too little about the human conscious and how our brain operates to stand up and declare that our perception of reality IS reality.

Having said all that, we should put further effort into understanding how the human conscious works, and how (as well as why) our brain truly processes the signals received, before setting out to prove hypothesis . We have to first fully understand the "rules of reality" before we can develop accurate methods to define the "facts of reality"....... Meaning right now there is no way to accurately test for paranormal!!

Sure. If there were scientific evidence for anything paranormal, it would not be paranormal. But ghosts don't even have a proper definition, let alone a workable hypothesis.

If there is, for anything paranormal, a falsifiable hypothesis that makes testable predictions, then science can look at it. That's how you gather the required evidence.

Great question. We have pseudo-scientists that insist that there is evidence for paranormal, such as ghosts, alien visitations or psi, but when you scratch the surface you find that their idea of "evidence" is a photo without a controlled history, or a video where all sorts of trickery could have taken place, or word-of-mouth ("I knew a guy..."). This is especially true of pseudo-scientists who convinced themselves that they have paranormal abilities themselves. When the self-deception is that strong, it's very hard to get through to them with critical thinking.

Like you alluded to, many paranormal claims (even assuming they are real) simply are difficult to support with scientific evidence -- that is, evidence that is gained under conditions where trickery and other spurious sources can be eliminated, and where the evidence is observable and repeatable. "Ghosts" are not going to line up for a lab study, after all :) Until ghosts can be found so that they can observed (sort of like sneaking up on wild apes in the forest), and assuming that they CAN be observed at all, scientific evidence will just not be available. The best you might be able to show is evidence for an unknown "something" causing anomalous things to happen, but you won't be able to pin it on a "ghost".

You do not identify any reason why claims related to the paranormal should not be subject to scientific test. Remember that the scientific method is the critical testing of hypotheses. Any claim about events occurring in the future in the real world can be stated as a hypothesis, and therefore is amenable to such testing.

E.g. an assertion that a ghost moves furniture about and makes noises can be tested be using audio-visual recording and direct observation of the allegedly haunted site.

I dreamed about a girl that I have never seen since I left school. I didn't have a fancy for her and had never even talked to her. She was also a couple of years behind me at school. I only saw her a few times in the corridor, but that was it. She was nothing to me I just knew her face. I went to bed just a few months ago and dreamed that I was at the local flea market and she was serving on her own stall. When I woke, I wondered what had brought that on. The dream went out of my head, but the next day, I went to the flea market, something I like to do at the end of the week. I was looking at bits and bobs on the table. I looked up and there she was. It was her stall. It all flooded back. I told her and she was fascinated. That is not the first time that has happened to me, and is very low on the scale compared to other weird things that have happened. I would love to blame it on the light reflecting off Venus, but I can't. It does not just happen to me, it happens to sceptics. It's just that I recognise that this was a paranormal event, no matter how small or unimportant. If a sceptic tells me that NOTHING has ever happened to them, I would tell them that it has, but they put it down to the wind or some silly excuse.

"Paranormal" is the traditional folk or superstitious "Explanations" for phenomena that have been observed since ancient times, but CANNOT BE EXPLAINED by the Science or philosophy of that given time.-----Simply "Unexplained" phenomena, that people explain as being "Spirits of the dead" or some other "mysterious "supernatural" forces that dates from the pre-Scientific age..

That does not necessarily mean the phenomena in question does NOT exist---only the superstitious explanation for it is wrong. It also does not mean we have explained a lot of this stuff YET, either.

No reasonable person thinks todays Science can explain EVERYTHING in nature so far. There are still a lot of phenomena that is still "Unexplained". The difference between Unexplained phenomena and Paranormal phenomena, is simply the "Paranormal" phenomena has an old superstition attached to it as an explanation.

We do not consider the "unexplained" "Dark energy" as being paranormal, yet we consider a white mist phenomena with associated EMFs as being "paranormal" because someone explained it as being a "Spirit of the dead" when they saw it thousands of years ago.

So Both phenomena are unknown. Why dark energy is not paranormal, is because it was discovered at a time when we do NOT explain the unexplained by "spooky" superstitions. The older phenomena may be just as real---only the explanation is dated and is rightly rejected today.

There is a BIG problem though with sloppy thinking and Logic errors. Many otherwise "Competent Skeptics" will tend to ignore the "EMF Mist" phenomena and say it does not exist, simply because the old explanation of a "Spirit" is wrong. Hello!---We are not talking about the superstition, but the actual phenomena that inspired the need for an "explanation" in the first place.

Both Skeptics and enthusiastic believers try to prove or disprove the phenomena on the basis of the SUPERSTITION----"Spirits" do not exist! or "They DO exist!--I've seen them!"----when all along we really should mean the "EMF MIST" that shows up from time to time we can't explain yet.-----We should not make any more of a given phenomena other than that we observe.

Once we reduce the phenomena down to only what was observed, solving the mystery become a lot more easier, or it can at least be reduced into natural elements. We may still not know how the EMF Mist functions or exactly what it is, but we sure can see it's ties to nature. EMFs are known to exist as also how mists can form when moist air is cooled----So already we have a few good "scientific "handles" on the problem that eventually can be worked out through further Scientific study----We can even reasonably assume it is some natural "atmospheric" effect.---just "unknown". No Paranormal explanations needed.

So how do we study and get evidence for phenomena in the "paranormal" category? First of all consider that the paranormal explanation is just THAT--- an EXPLANATION!. Likely wrong and has no bearing on the reality (or not) of the real phenomena that inspired it. Secondly---OBSERVE the phenomena and measure it , if possible.---One reason most stuff STILL is called paranormal today, is because it is so rare and intermittent, it is hard to catch it.__This is the real goal of "Ghost hunters" (the scientific type" anyway--go to where it happens and hope to be lucky.----I still have trouble with their superstitious pre-suppositions though.

Once we can get some kind of semi-predictability going here the base phenomena may be easier to study. I liken it to the study of volcanic eruptions.---You cant study them in the lab, you gotta go to where they happen and hope to get lucky---and then collect all the data you can.

Read how MAXWELL discovered or confirmed Faraday's "controversial" Electromagnetic waves for an example of how to scientifically approach an "Unexplained" or unknown subject.-----Of course EM waves were not Paranormal because they were "unknowns" observed AFTER people stopped attaching superstitious explanations to things unexplainable -----How are the phenomena we CALL "spirits", as a way to explain them, any different?

Well you keyed in on one problem, "whats the control?" whats the measurable difference between audio pareidolia and an actual EVP?

side stepping that, it largely depends on what your trying to prove, if it's ghosts you need to get information that is shared between as few sources as possible, the specific detailed location of a secret family heirloom for example. if a ghost hunter can come and hear a ghost say "it's in the basement, roll top desk, third drawer on the second row" without doing any research beforehand, that would be fairly compelling.

Paranormal , or rather outside the normal, can't be quantified.

Some people either through ignorance or because they actually don't want proof of anything paranormal, these people take the attitude that if there is something there, then it can be easily tested for. The fact that it gasn'r been -- to such people-- is therefore "proof" the paranormal doesn't exist. This is a fallacious argument.

Some things in physics that we accept as being real such as neutrinos, quarks, the Higgs-boson particle, are still notoriously difficult to prove using the traditional scientific method. By a doyble standard applied to the paranormal, it's ojay ro accept as fact gravitational lensing-- something only sporadically observed from light-years away-- but psi phenomena is rejected as "pseudoscience" by some despite the mounting body of evidence. It is easier to prove telepathy than it is to prove that quarks are real but science is more willing to accept mostly on faith that quarks are real while ignoring telepathy or telekinesis.

The continued insistence on "controlled conditions" is more of a way to make sure no results are gotten than any kind of verifiable results as there are many phenomena that simply are not repeatable in a lab. Accept that, and move on with it. Nobody questions the validity of a nova or a black hole, but neither have ever been found in a lab-- and never will be. It is very like that no ghost will ever be found in a lab, but that doesn't make them any less real or proof that ghosts don't exist. You can't have a double standard in science because mainstream science doesn't like the subject.

Some well-known scientists accept the notion that psi is real, and testing for it can be done by applying due diligence in finding the best subjects and to be especially careful so the testing can't be contested by the idiot majority that looks for every possible flaw. In 1937 Harold Sherman did telepathy experiments with explorer Hubert Wilkins and got 60% positive results. With Wilkins half-way around the world there was no chance of fraud or cheating. but as Stuart Chase once said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Where skeptics are concerned, no amount of proof will indeed convince them.

Easy. Take a claim someone has made and find a way to test it. You can talk to ghosts? Great. I just told the ghost something. What was it? You can test any claim that makes a claim to do something.