What would you say is the greatest debate about the paranormal?
You know the typical does paranormal events happen? Do ghosts exist and what about the different abilities? Is it the orb debate? Is it about Ouija boards being a toy or demonic? What do you think?
The orb debate is the most overblown. Paranormal investigators with knowledge and experience know they are simple photographic effects. Ouija boards are by far the silliest.
Why after thousands of years of sightings and abilities, is there still no verifiable evidence? For the first couple of thousand there were good excuses. Now with recording devices, and millions of claims, it seems something would turn up.
The greatest debate is "It Doesn’t Work Like That, Why". That one question, opens up all the others.
It’s all in our minds and imagination. Things are truth in as far as we recognize them. Blind person can’t be expected to produce a relevant account of what happened before his eyes, yet people who can see and hear tend to exaggerate about things or events they have witnessed and they usually ascribe them some supernatural hue, sometimes willingly at other times incidentally !
In short: mathematics and logic, all beyond that is pure imagination and ( or ) manipulation.
References :
Hi I think the greatest debate is whether the paranormal exists,and to do prove that it does.Doe’s it exist? Yes in my opinion it does.I have had several experiences over my life time to convince me of this phenomena.I think that spirits have the ability to make us aware of their presences and they can also be of a negative kind.They can move things,make noises,appear in full apparitions or as mists or orbs.Paranormal investigators don’t use Ouija boards,they feel this only opens up a gateway for evil to enter in to our world.A great site for Ouija boards is at http://www.graveaddiction.com.When you reach the site,click on the left hand side where is says Ouija stories,it offers tips on how to open and close your sessions and protection prayers and a lot of other fascinating things to take a look at.Orbs will always be debated,orbs are energy.Some can be debunked as being particles of dust,bugs or reflections off of a cameras lens and some are considered to be a persons spirit.Hope this answers your questions and you enjoy the site,Tomb Raider.
References :
The greatest debate about the paranormal is simply, what is paranormal.
Science in genearal (including offshoot sciences like quantum and string theory etc) are quickly catching up to what ‘oddballs’ have been saying all along, that the world is made of both energy and consciousness, that our very thoughts shape our reality around us. This concept explains every ‘paranormal’ experience anyone has ever had. All paranormal experiences are real and valid for those who experience them, and for those who have a mind to believe their friends and family. For those who don’t have an inclination to believe any of this ‘nonsense’ their reality is just as real and valid for them.
References :
The demand for scientific proof of paranormal and who is responsible for the proof.
Alone the demand for scientific proof is an oxymoron. Paranormal is defined as being beyond the normal experience or scientific explanation. In effect the demand is to explain scientifically that which cannot be scientifically explained.
Scientific method that is used and accepted in not yet able to be used to verify the existence so the person is being giving an impossible task. One could more justly demand of scientists that they develop a method to explain that which has not yet been ruled out in opposition to being written off as fantasy, illusion or errant perception. There is much that has not been fully clarified and due to the inability to reproduce and/or control the event, too many critics simply claim that the event did not exist. Being uncleared and lack of proof does not disprove. Even when there is a lot of claims that are able to be explained and some outright fraudulent claims, this does not disprove all claims. To use the Randi Challenge is as ignorant as to use Sylvia Brown. In order for scientific proof to be found, science needs to advance to a level where it may be applicably used. This is one aspect of science, to progress by collecting information and when necessary to take a different approach in order to find a method that may be functional. When a person witnesses something be it a crime or a paranormal event, they are not the person who needs to provide proof. Just as any law enforcement person knows, each witness will have their own viewpoint and interpretation of a crime, each person who has a particular experience will also interpret it by their own perspective. Criminologists have made use of advances to better solve crimes and witness accounts are a major factor of the methods used. A person who seeks proof for that which is at this time not explainable would be required to understand the methods available, how to apply the methods and in the end how to adapt the methods in order to come up with theories that may be testable. It is not the witness or claimant that is best suited to do this, it is the person who works with the methods.
I would not expect a person who has witnessed a brain surgery to provide proof of its effects, this should be left to the person qualified to do the surgery. If the layman were to attempt said surgery, this would not be proof that it cannot be effective. Even early surgeons were often ineffective and did not have positive results.
I have seen on this forum where people have even used the released government documentation, at least that which has been declassified, as their evidence to claim disproof. This may be comparable to a debriefing. My personal experience in debriefing is that a discussion of the event and incident takes place in order to collect information and then I was told what was allowed to be commented about and what if anything would be said. Paperwork is signed as to not violating security and the official interpretation becomes the declassified information be it factual or entirely fictional. There was a time I was forbidden to utilize the words atomic and nuclear in any reference to a particular situation. I was told it is best if these terms were to be stricken from my vocabulary all together and if I were required to make any official comments I was to use the word special which could be twisted any way necessary. Any violation of this may be punishable as treason and/or be handled as a threat to homeland security. My favorite opsec statement is "I cannot confirm or deny that." which is of as much value as any other official information or comments by the government.
There is consideration for financing research. How much of a restriction is placed on a researcher by the finance. One need not look much further than the automotive and energy industries to get an impression of how the restrictions work. There have been numerous highly effective methods to produce more fuel efficient automobiles for decades, where is this technology and information today? It would seem that as petroleum increased to prices of around 5x what it was just a few years ago the claim of financially unfeasible would be questionable. If proof were verifiable and controllable of paranormal abilities what would be the most effective way to contain the potential use thereof and hinder any use against ones interests. I am not saying funding is intentionally being restricted and therefore research reduced for any particular purpose. The critics claim that it is due to a lack of proof or verifiable results. There is also an increase of public interest which leaves a vacuum for frauds and charlatans to make use of. Of course this sounds like a conspiracy theory and what do I know, I am probably one of those delusional believers and paranoid of the government. I will leave it at that and let you think for yourselves. Believe what you will, I have nothing I need to prove to anyone.
References :
The orb debate is the most overblown. Paranormal investigators with knowledge and experience know they are simple photographic effects. Ouija boards are by far the silliest.
Why after thousands of years of sightings and abilities, is there still no verifiable evidence? For the first couple of thousand there were good excuses. Now with recording devices, and millions of claims, it seems something would turn up.
The greatest debate is "It Doesn’t Work Like That, Why". That one question, opens up all the others.
References :
I think it might be about the relevance and validity of first-hand accounts of personal experiences — what is often termed as "anecdotal evidence."
These experiences are not the sort that can be reproduced in a scientific laboratory, and therefore there are those who declare them to be nonexistent.
It comes down to a debate about what is real and what is not and how we can perceive what is real.
References :
in my opinion, Are they are they not real!
References :
Pascha hit the nail on the head. It’s not about ‘does the paranormal exist?’ it’s about verifying it. I know and believe in what I’ve experienced, but I haven’t been able to repeat any of it. (That, of course, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen). Enjoy this unusual world!
References :
I think the biggest debate would be if the term "Paranormal" is completely misleading.
For example, 5000 years ago people probably discussed lightning as a paranormal phenomena. However, once it was understood it was no longer considered a magical event.
Now we have things going on, people are jumping to conclusions about ghosts, psychics, and aliens and such. However, is it paranormal, or is it just something thats not completely understood.
For example, lets say ghosts are real. If this is the case, then they exist in our universe and can eventually be understood. Once they are understood, they will no longer be paranormal, but integrated into our science database. However, by calling them paranormal, and jumping to conclusions (for example "Its my dead uncle Ralph returned from the grave.) we inhibit any honest exploration of the phenomena. So the ‘Paranormal’ label creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once people are eager and willing to believe a ghost is their dead Uncle Ralph, they are then unwilling to accept more rational explanations like rattling water pipes or mice in the attic.
References :
Experiences are subjective and that goes for science as well. When it comes to personal encounters, every one is not the same. You set up an experiment to observe something and that is exactly what you will or will not find, but if you have no idea what it is you’re looking for well then you cannot find anything – science is arrogant.
References :
The greatest debate is alien abduction. I have read so many articles on it. Have you seen a Gray.
Some people claiming pictures. There are 18,000 Grays Aliens. Do you believe that?
Where is your reasoning? You can say that you are an educated person. Do you believe Mrs. Hill?
I always believe Mrs. Hill myself. I don’t know why. Because she was a social worker.
A social worker is usually a compassion person and organize. Most of the tales are legend.
There must be some truth to the legends. How about the case of Betty Andreas son? There are many claims, people can not be lieing that much. Think about it. There is something here, but what.
Any thoughts. I have talked to a professor about this. It is all in the head. Is it? Where are they taken to? on a nice space ship by the Nordics. this is my take, always believe in yourself.
Use your own experiences and use common sense.
If you notice all the paranormal stuff happens at night
when everything is quiet. No one is around.
You are tired, do you get delusion or not?
the only proof is Electronic Voice Phenomenon
Also there is Frank’s Box where you can get pick up
the channels of the spirits. The third way is telepathic
(my gift). Also the fourth way is infrared cameras.
Oh I forget about the camera that pick up the little orbs lights. Also some video camera pick these up. The new age of technology is here.
References :
easy–if its all real is the biggest debate
people will say oh its just your imagination
References :
The answer depends upon your background. For the skeptic, the debate is about proof – evidence that such phenomena as ESP and PK exist. For the theoretician the debate is about the correct way to resolve the mind/body problem. For the parapsychologist the debate centers on explanations of consciousness, for the ‘parnormal investigator’ or ‘ghost hunter’ the debate centers on the best way to collect evidence. But for the layperson who has had an experience, the greatest debate is most often with others regarding the tru validity of the experience(s) .
References :
The only debate is what true believers consider as evidence. Their bar is a lot lower than science’s.
References :