|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4730 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Movie Paranormal Activity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Except that just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean it is. No, but if all you know is what something looks like, then arriving at a conclusion that it is what it looks like isn't unreasonable. I'm not saying it's right. But, all other things being equal things usually are what they seem to be. Again - if all you had was a video of the supernatural that looked like a hoax, or like a fake, then what would be unreasonable about concluding it was a hoax or a fake? Or, I'll ask it another way. You show someone a video of the supernatural, but it looks fake. What other evidence would be necessary to conclude the video isn't fake? That's the answer to your original question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4730 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: For me, before coming to a conclusion, I'd take it to an expert, or several, and get it analyzed first before coming to a conclusion. If they found any kind of glitches that could be an indication that it's a fake, then it's a fake. If they can't find anything that could be an indication of fakery, then it's not a fake. Or if there is no consensus then I'd simply call it inconclusive either way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Tram law writes: quote: For me, before coming to a conclusion, I'd take it to an expert, or several, and get it analyzed first before coming to a conclusion. If they found any kind of glitches that could be an indication that it's a fake, then it's a fake. If they can't find anything that could be an indication of fakery, then it's not a fake. Or if there is no consensus then I'd simply call it inconclusive either way. Even if it was absolutely original and accurate with absolute proof that it was not faked it would still not be evidence of the paranormal. In fact, evidence of the paranormal is by definition, impossible. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Tram law writes: I just saw this movie for the first time. For those who have seen the movie, and based on the hypothetical if it's real, that is if actual footage like this was actually found, would this constitute real and hard evidence of the paranormal? Or would this all be chalked up to camera glitches because it looks fake? It's like you're asking, "If you saw a ghost, would you believe in ghosts?" You're inadvertently pigeonholing people in to a specific conclusion by not offering much of an alternative.
You see, while I am not a believer in the existence of the paranormal, I do believe that "whatever remains after sifting through all the evidence, however improbable, must be the truth". While it certainly can be, I don't think that necessarily is a truism. People still often believe things they want to believe and protect their worldview, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As far as the movie though, I still haven't seen it but I've heard really good reviews. I heard it was created on like a $4,000 budget, which is incredible, and that the entire movie was filmed in the director's home to cut down on cost. "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
For me, before coming to a conclusion, I'd take it to an expert, or several, and get it analyzed first before coming to a conclusion. Did you do that when you saw "Paranormal Activity"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
No, but if all you know is what something looks like, then arriving at a conclusion that it is what it looks like isn't unreasonable. I'm not saying it's right. But, all other things being equal things usually are what they seem to be. Again - if all you had was a video of the supernatural that looked like a hoax, or like a fake, then what would be unreasonable about concluding it was a hoax or a fake? Or, I'll ask it another way. You show someone a video of the supernatural, but it looks fake. What other evidence would be necessary to conclude the video isn't fake? That's the answer to your original question. I think what he's asking is that the video looks fake from what you see in the video, not from the video itself. Meaning a video that seemed to have been genuinely filmed (no glitches, no evidence of editing etc.), and that not evidence from what you see in it indicates it is fake (no seeable hidden ropes, etc.) In this context, showing a video to someone who does not believe the paranormal exist, what would lead him to conclude that it is a hoax (if we are honest with ourselves here, this would be the conclusion of most atheist here), while someone who believes that the paranormal is at least a possibility will come to the more straightforward conclusion about it; maybe it is genuine. In other words, to the atheist (for example), it looks fake only because he is seeing 'evidence' of the paranormal (a floating chair), which he thinks is impossible. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Even if it was absolutely original and accurate with absolute proof that it was not faked it would still not be evidence of the paranormal. In fact, evidence of the paranormal is by definition, impossible. This statement can only be true if you use a very circular definition of paranormal, which we have seen implicitly defined in this thread already. The definition is usually somewhere around the following A paranormal (or supernatural) phenomenon is defined as a natural phenomenon that hasn't been identified as such yet. The begging-the-question in such a definition is obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: Even if it was absolutely original and accurate with absolute proof that it was not faked it would still not be evidence of the paranormal. In fact, evidence of the paranormal is by definition, impossible. This statement can only be true if you use a very circular definition of paranormal, which we have seen implicitly defined in this thread already. The definition is usually somewhere around the following A paranormal (or supernatural) phenomenon is defined as a natural phenomenon that hasn't been identified as such yet. The begging-the-question in such a definition is obvious. Sorry but that is simply nonsense. If it is identified it is no longer paranormal or supernatural. But it is really even more difficult, there simply cannot be evidence of either the supernatural or paranormal; what is possible is that something can be Natural, or it goes into the Unknown folder. There can never be a paranormal folder or supernatural folder; that would imply that something is known, and unfortunately, so far no one has ever shown how something other than the Natural could be known. Putting something in a paranormal or supernatural folder is simply dishonest and an admission of giving up. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
If it is identified it is no longer paranormal or supernatural. Why can't it be identified as a supernatural phenomenon ?
But it is really even more difficult, there simply cannot be evidence of either the supernatural or paranormal; what is possible is that something can be Natural, or it goes into the Unknown folder. Once again, yo usee no way that it could be confidently put into the paranormal folder ? What if you were pulled down the stairs by 'something' dragging you by your feet, and then puled down into the basement while you hear 'demonic' voices in your head (sorry, I only watched paranormal activity 2) ? Plus it was filmed (so no possibility of hallucinations) ?
There can never be a paranormal folder or supernatural folder; that would imply that something is known, and unfortunately, so far no one has ever shown how something other than the Natural could be known. But that's not what your saying. You aren't saying that up until now nothing has warranted being put into such a folder. You are saying that by definition nothing whatsoever can ever be put into such a folder, whatever that could be.
Putting something in a paranormal or supernatural folder is simply dishonest and an admission of giving up. If we take the above example, I would think the honest thing to do would be to put the phenomenon into the paranormal folder (by Occam's razor) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4730 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: So what would be the alternative? A swirling mass of unidentified energy that looks like it could be a person who had formerly lived? If an unknown invisible force grabbed you by the feet and pulled you out of bed, and down a flight of stairs, and it wasn't a hallucination of some sort, and it can't be a hallucination because it was caught on tape and you have the injuries to prove it, what is the alternate answer?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Once again, any alternative answer would have to explain what did happen. To be an alternative answer, it has to be an answer, not just a litany of what it wasn't. If an unknown invisible force grabbed you by the feet and pulled you out of bed, and down a flight of stairs, and it wasn't a hallucination of some sort, and it can't be a hallucination because it was caught on tape and you have the injuries to prove it, what is the alternate answer? If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
slevesque writes: jar writes: If it is identified it is no longer paranormal or supernatural. Why can't it be identified as a supernatural phenomenon ?
But it is really even more difficult, there simply cannot be evidence of either the supernatural or paranormal; what is possible is that something can be Natural, or it goes into the Unknown folder. Once again, yo usee no way that it could be confidently put into the paranormal folder ? What if you were pulled down the stairs by 'something' dragging you by your feet, and then puled down into the basement while you hear 'demonic' voices in your head (sorry, I only watched paranormal activity 2) ? Plus it was filmed (so no possibility of hallucinations) ? I see no way it could EVER be put in a paranormal or supernatural folder. In the case you mentioned I would place it in the unknown folder since there is absolutely no evidence that there are demons and if such evidence did ever show up it would simply show that demons are just another natural phenomena.
slevesque writes: jar writes: There can never be a paranormal folder or supernatural folder; that would imply that something is known, and unfortunately, so far no one has ever shown how something other than the Natural could be known. But that's not what your saying. You aren't saying that up until now nothing has warranted being put into such a folder. You are saying that by definition nothing whatsoever can ever be put into such a folder, whatever that could be. I'm saying there is no need of such folders since everything fits nicely into the Natural and Unknown folders.
slevesque writes: jar writes: Putting something in a paranormal or supernatural folder is simply dishonest and an admission of giving up. If we take the above example, I would think the honest thing to do would be to put the phenomenon into the paranormal folder (by Occam's razor) You might think that but you would be wrong. There is NOTHING in your example to suggest paranormal over unexplained. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4171 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
Tram law writes: quote: So what would be the alternative? A swirling mass of unidentified energy that looks like it could be a person who had formerly lived? If an unknown invisible force grabbed you by the feet and pulled you out of bed, and down a flight of stairs, and it wasn't a hallucination of some sort, and it can't be a hallucination because it was caught on tape and you have the injuries to prove it, what is the alternate answer? See this link first. How Invisibility Cloaks Work | HowStuffWorks It deals with optical camouflage. Now if someone had an advanced version of a optical invisibility suit like what is being developed, say CIA, and they wanted to screw with you, knowing you had security cameras, then this would be perfect. No clear explanation of what drug you out of bed, security video would be un-altered. CIA and military is happy when people see UFOs and not advanced aircraft, the same would be true with seeing ghost and not an optically camouflaged agent. Is this an explanation, no. But is a more plausible theory than ghost. "I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Often the best answer really is "We don't know yet". Simply saing "paranormal" or "supernatural" has no meaning and stops the inquiry.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18335 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
slevesque writes: If it is identified it is no longer paranormal or supernatural. Why can't it be identified as a supernatural phenomenon ? It can. But why should it be? And what is a working definition of supernatural?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024