The Movie Paranormal Activity

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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!

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. 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

Did you do that when you saw "Paranormal Activity"?

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.

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 followingA 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!

Why can't it be identified as a supernatural phenomenon ? 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) ? 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. 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.

quote:

---

You're inadvertently pigeonholing people in to a specific conclusion by not offering much of an alternative.

---

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?

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 you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

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. I'm saying there is no need of such folders since everything fits nicely into the Natural and Unknown folders. 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!

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. ThompsonAd astra per aspera

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!

It can. But why should it be? And what is a working definition of supernatural?