Crashfrog writes:
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?
Several obvious questions spring to mind, here. First, the cameraman. If someone is filming the video, they would be actually experiencing an unexplainable event with their senses...rather than through a video, as the rest of us would do. My expectation is that the cameraman has a deeper perspective than mere watchers of the video would have.
TramLaw writes:
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.
I agree with those who support the "unexplained" folder in lieu of a "supernatural" folder.
One has to at least know what one is putting into a folder.
jar writes:
evidence of the paranormal is by definition, impossible.
Sounds logical to me. an unexplained folder can be examined the same way that a so called "supernatural" category would be. The only difference is that preconceived bias is largely eliminated.
slavesque writes:
A paranormal (or supernatural) phenomenon is defined as a natural phenomenon that hasn't been identified as such yet.
Which is no different from "unexplained".
We could very well call it the Humpty Dumpty Folder, but the question that could be asked is this:
"Do you want to find anything in particular? Do you find yourself hoping for a certain conclusion?
™ Version 4.2
