News:

Here as a guest? Welcome! If you found a topic or discussion you like, we hope you'll register. Besides getting privileges to reply and start your own topics, you'll receive access to expanded content and entire boards unavailable to the general public. Sign up now! It's simple and fast.

Main Menu

What Constitutes "Credible" Evidence?

Started by PPI Brian, September 07, 2007, 01:41:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

PPI Brian

As a researcher/investigator I often dwell on this subject. This article from ParaScience.com is worth browsing:

http://www.parascience.org.uk/articles/evidence.htm
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."--Carl Sagan

PPI Brian

So what exactly constitutes "evidence" of paranormal activity? And how much evidence is required before one can say a specific location is "haunted"?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."--Carl Sagan

IBelieveNoOne

Well, to me credible evidence is anything that you cannot logically explain - things that move on their own would be the most credible to me, EVP's are good too, anything else is kinda iffy. "Creepy" feelings can be psychosomatic; "wierd" creaking and bangs are most often attributed to plumbing, or wood expansion, the wind, etc. There are many logical explainations for most "hauntings" - tho when that chair moved by it's at the lighthouse on Ghost Hunters, well, I was pretty impressed. If it was faked it was EXTREMELY well done (unlike that episode they had at the Queen Mary with the faked bedcover incident). I don't think they are fakers tho, so I cautiously trust their evidence. I guess it all comes down to - if you can't explain it, or think of a logical probability for it, then you have to consider that it might, just MIGHT, be paranormal.