"Most Haunted House in America" True Ghost Story:
The gentleman being interviewed at the above link, Paul Eno, comes off as uber credible and describes a poltergeist case of unprecedented proportions that he personally witnessed, which includes sworn statements in police reports from police and fireman who say objects moved in horror movie-like ways. This all took place in a very finite space and all individuals involved were focused on looking for signs of trickery. This is a fine example of good evidence that could never even be considered for repeatable laboratory experiments. In this respect, the scientific method is lacking. More lacking though, is the logic of any scientists or would-be debunkers who would dismiss good evidence simply because its nature lies outside of the ability of a certain process to examine the phenomena. That being said, there have been repeatable tests conducted and papers published on paranormal evidence suggestive of life after death.
But things are still dismissed even when they meet these standards. The first thing that any scientist or debunker should do is praise the fact that their favored process was employed. Rather than: praise the process, make recommendations, and attempt a personal replication study or the publication of a peer-reviewed response. Instead we often get: moving of goalposts and overly harsh criticism, used as an excuse for dismissal of personal attempts at replication and/or publication. If the demand of repeatability or peer-review is met, then even seemingly warranted harsh criticism does not justify a position of dismissal. This is doubly true when both criteria are met, as is the case with psi research over and over again, which initial critics have replicated what at first seemed like impossible results, obviously without expectations of doing so. Amazing stuff, although you wouldn't know it if you were to ask The Amazing James Randi.
If replication of a demonstrated paranormal phenomena in the lab is attempted and fails, it can be reasonably argued that it would still further demonstrate that the larger methodology here, isn't a fair litmus test for deciding the veracity of all things paranormal. These processes are only as good the people employing them and judging the results in peer-review. Scientists are just as affected by a priori assumptions and bias of all kinds as any other segment of the population. Some would argue more so, or perhaps scientists fair better with these shortcomings. But until they are cyborgs, this reason alone means that the repeatable laboratory result/peer-review model, is just a tool in a myriad of ways we should try to arrive at conclusions about things, especially with the paranormal. Because again, even a cyborg cannot accurately conduct or judge research on phenomena when their programmed MO includes prerequisites that cannot be met.
To put it all another way, the fact that certain paranormal evidence such as poltergeist activity cannot meet the prerequisite of repeatability, does not mean it should be met with outright dismissal. There are other standards by which to judge such evidence, most namely, the legal standard.
Free E-book: A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife - Irrefutable Objective Evidence
And it should go without saying, that there is plenty of paranormal happenings that have been studied and provided compelling evidence using scientific principles and/or equipment, even if it defies the most often reliable model of laboratory repeatability.
Supernormal Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dean Radin, PhD
The gentleman being interviewed at the above link, Paul Eno, comes off as uber credible and describes a poltergeist case of unprecedented proportions that he personally witnessed, which includes sworn statements in police reports from police and fireman who say objects moved in horror movie-like ways. This all took place in a very finite space and all individuals involved were focused on looking for signs of trickery. This is a fine example of good evidence that could never even be considered for repeatable laboratory experiments. In this respect, the scientific method is lacking. More lacking though, is the logic of any scientists or would-be debunkers who would dismiss good evidence simply because its nature lies outside of the ability of a certain process to examine the phenomena. That being said, there have been repeatable tests conducted and papers published on paranormal evidence suggestive of life after death.
Critics say EVP is just the pick up of stray broadcast signals. But we
follow a former NASA scientist, and the world’s leading EVP researcher,
into a laboratory that is totally shielded from all sound and electromagnetic signals. Despite it being a scientific impossibility he is able to produce an EVP sample in front of our cameras.
http://debunkingdeath.
Comment on Article: First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study
http://debunkingdeath.
But things are still dismissed even when they meet these standards. The first thing that any scientist or debunker should do is praise the fact that their favored process was employed. Rather than: praise the process, make recommendations, and attempt a personal replication study or the publication of a peer-reviewed response. Instead we often get: moving of goalposts and overly harsh criticism, used as an excuse for dismissal of personal attempts at replication and/or publication. If the demand of repeatability or peer-review is met, then even seemingly warranted harsh criticism does not justify a position of dismissal. This is doubly true when both criteria are met, as is the case with psi research over and over again, which initial critics have replicated what at first seemed like impossible results, obviously without expectations of doing so. Amazing stuff, although you wouldn't know it if you were to ask The Amazing James Randi.http://debunkingdeath.
Comment on Article: First hint of 'life after death' in biggest ever scientific study
If replication of a demonstrated paranormal phenomena in the lab is attempted and fails, it can be reasonably argued that it would still further demonstrate that the larger methodology here, isn't a fair litmus test for deciding the veracity of all things paranormal. These processes are only as good the people employing them and judging the results in peer-review. Scientists are just as affected by a priori assumptions and bias of all kinds as any other segment of the population. Some would argue more so, or perhaps scientists fair better with these shortcomings. But until they are cyborgs, this reason alone means that the repeatable laboratory result/peer-review model, is just a tool in a myriad of ways we should try to arrive at conclusions about things, especially with the paranormal. Because again, even a cyborg cannot accurately conduct or judge research on phenomena when their programmed MO includes prerequisites that cannot be met.
To put it all another way, the fact that certain paranormal evidence such as poltergeist activity cannot meet the prerequisite of repeatability, does not mean it should be met with outright dismissal. There are other standards by which to judge such evidence, most namely, the legal standard.
Free E-book: A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife - Irrefutable Objective Evidence
And it should go without saying, that there is plenty of paranormal happenings that have been studied and provided compelling evidence using scientific principles and/or equipment, even if it defies the most often reliable model of laboratory repeatability.
Supernormal Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dean Radin, PhD
The
next thing I recall was the sound: It was a
Someone said something about my veins and
arteries being very small. I believe it was a female voice and
that it was Dr. Murray, but I'm not sure. She was the cardiologist.
I remember thinking that I should have told her about that ...
I remember the heart-lung machine. I didn't like the respirator
... I remember a lot of tools and instruments that I did not
readily recognize.