What would be acceptable proof?

Question

If you wonder if Ghosts,Demons,Vampires, exist.What would prove to you they don't?Do you think Psychics and Mediums are real?What would change your mind?

Answer 1

Scientific proof.  Solid, verifiable, testable, reproducible, proof that stands up to detailed scrutiny from all challengers.

James Randi's challenge is indeed a fair one, as another respondent has already noted.  One shouldn't whine because the test is hard and will expose fraud.  Randi's mission is to make people aware that magic IS fraud...artfully done, and purely for entertainment.  Randi usually begins his lectures by saying, "I am a professional magician.  That  means I'm a cheat and a fraud, and I'm here to entertain you."  This applies to everyone who's trying to make you believe otherwise.

Trying to test paranormal phenomena is very hard, and may even be close to impossible.  But if you want me to give some claim of "real" paranormal ability the ole nod, they better have some absolutely amazing scientific proof.  This certainly applies to mediums and all forms of psychics.

If they can do it, and have the proof, then count me as a believer.  But not until then.

Answer 2

Swedenborg offered conclusive proof of the afterlife. He spoke to those that passed on and they revealed where the wealth was hidden and he revealed this information to the families! Do you consider this sufficient proof of an afterlife?

Answer 3

not sure i believe in them and it would take me seeing it to believe it

Answer 4

There is no proof that such things don't exist, but there are several very good reasons for challenging belief in their existence.  The laws of physics, for one.  The legends surrounding these entities are purely anecdotal.  In other words, not a reliable basis for belief.  The implausibility, physical impossibilities, the absence of any good evidence, and the general unreliability of sources, combine to give one very little reason to believe.  

   Those who don't believe something are not the ones who have anything to prove.  The burden of proof lies on those who make the claims.  As has often been quoted: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

  So why do so many people believe in such things?  Because it gives them a rush.  Not a very honest reason, but all too often, the only one.  Some believe because of experiences they can't explain.  Some, I believe, have even inherited the experiences of *others* through stories in books, television, or movies, and have incorporated them as their own memories.  The human mind is capable of self-deception, extreme in some cases.  Psychology is the best explanation.  Not parapsychology.

Answer 5

First, it is not possible using the rules of logic to prove something does not exist.

Second, science does not prove things. Science is a method of inquiry that consist of testing hypothesis and either finding supporting evidence for the hypothesis or failing to support the hypothesis (finding nothing).

Psychics and Mediums may be real and they may not.

The University of Arizona through the Veritas Research Program http://veritas.arizona.edu/index.htm is attempting to  find out through scientific inquiry.

Also, there are certainly many people claiming to be psychic and mediums that have no ability (beyond fraud) and others who believe they have abilities and do not.

Those that are willing to cooperate in scientific investigations have my respect and attention.

The Randi challenge is probably the biggest fraud of all.

No one makes it past initial stages because Randi won't agree to acceptable standards of science like statistical significance beyond chance.

Michael John Weaver, M.S.

Addition: Yes one can do it for instance by performing at levels above chance. Where chance is 25% and you score 33% (the odds of this being by chance are over a million to one) then you have done it. But, if you expect to guess, say every ESP card correct, (at 100%) then this shows a lack of understanding of how science works. Randi can't explain the difference in perfomance only that the ability is not perfect.

In dealing with human performance one can not expect 100% results. For instance a basketball player may have scored 60 points (his personal high) in one game but can not be expected to score 60 points in every game due to circumstances (the other team, etc.) .

Answer 6

Well, since you cannot prove a negative, you can either prove such things exist, or you can show there is no evidence for their existance (which is not the same thing as proving they do not exist).

Therefore it would be difficult to prove to anyone that they don't exist - just that no proof exists.

One could turn the question around: how much proof would a skeptic require before they would accept the existance of such things?  Issac Asimov said he would not believe in aliens if a spacecraft landed on the White House lawn.

Answer 7

A large amount of money deposited in my bank account would be good for starters.

Answer 8

Since no one has yet offered proof of any of those things, I would need proof to believe in them.  Psychics and mediums could easily prove that they can do what they claim - all they have to do is do it under controlled circumstances (when they couldn't be cheating).  This guy will give them a million bucks if they can prove it.  http://www.randi.org    No luck so far.

Answer 9

Good question. What psiexploration said in his first paragraph is true: science can't logically prove a hypothesis. It can provide overwhelming evidence for a hypothesis, but not proof. Proof can only be had in mathematics and liquor :)  While the scientific method can offer extremely high probabilities that a hypothesis is correct, it can never prove it with 100% certainty. On the other hand, it is an easy matter to falsify a hypothesis. If you can physically demonstrate or observe an exception to the suggested hypothesis, you've effectively falsified it. That being said, I don't think there is any way to logically prove that ghosts, demons and vampires don't exist.

Regarding psychic and mediums, if you observe them for any length of time, they disprove themselves :)  But, that is not proof that someone can't come along and actually demonstrate psychic powers. It's just never happened yet.

In summary, I believe that ghosts, demons, vampires, etc., are so antithetical to the current understanding of our universe that their existence is not only improbable but absurd. Regarding psychics, the same applies. However, I can't prove it. I'm certainly willing to hear the evidence.

NOTE -- While psiexploration's first paragraph is good, his remark about Randi is totally off the mark. Randi himself does not even get involved in the experimental protocol. The protocol with its statistical methods is done with the same rigor that one might find in a scientific journal article but no more. The statistical approach must be intensive enough to eliminate the possibility of coincidence to a high confidence level (95% or 2 standard deviations is typical) else there is no point in the testing. And in most cases, such statistical analysis is not even needed -- if you can telekinetically move an object just once, you've won the prize.

Answer 10

When I go into my yard and see deer tracks, I believe that a deer has been there.  If I find deer droppings, I'm more sure.  If I find signs of deer feeding, it would be very hard to convince me that deer had not been there.  Could somebody be playing a trick on me and creating these signs?  Sure, but they wouldn't have much to gain.  

It the same related to Psychics and Mediums.  If they show the signs of having the skills, I become curious.  If they have something to gain from our interaction, I begin to doubt and am much more dilligent in my investigation.  If they have nothing to gain, I am much more likely to accept what I am seeing.

I have met people who have skills who do not advertise or profit from their abilities.  They only use their skills when they are asked or invited, and they do not accept money.  You wouldn't know who they are, because they are not famous.  Some even avoid contact with other people because they do not want any publicity.

I believe my own eyes and what I have personally investigated.  Some people have never come into contact with a person who has legitimate training and talent to demonstrate their skills.  I understand why you wouldn't believe what you have never seen, but no true researcher or scientist will say that the current science explains everything under the sun.  We have more to learn, so we keep searching.

Unless you proved to me that all of my experiences were delusions or the product of illusionists, you won't change my mind.  I have investigated them closely and I no longer *believe* in Psychics and Mediums.  I *know* that there are some people who demonstrate those abilities just like I know that there are deer.  I have seen them.  Many people who claim to have these skills are not legitimate, but that does not mean that legitimate practitioners do not exist.

Answer 11

When I hear something that sounds unlikely, I try to consider whether the person telling me has an ulterior motive in making me believe it.

There are examples, though, where something sounds amazing, but I can think of no motive for making it up...  For instance the long lives of Methuselah, Noah, etc, in the Bible...  Ball Lightning... Spontaneous Human Combustion... While I have my doubts about these topics, I would not reject them until they are conclusively disproven.

On the other hand, if I have good reason to reject an idea, I will reject it.  Faster Than Light travel, for instance, results in time travel, so I won't believe that aliens from distant planets have come to earth using FTL technology in the past, because the paradoxes of time travel are too tricky.  On the other hand, I would not entirely discount the idea of another method.

Even when an argument sounds reasonable, I try to be very wary of anything that sounds like it might be a preconceived notion.  This can be indicated by something like, "we took the measurement, but it was wrong, so we took another measurement and it was right."

When proof of an idea comes from specific examples, while the broad measure of statistics are ignored, I reject the idea as a fluke or coincidence.

Answer 12

I believe there are those who can give the illusion of superiority with special effects or so-called;"Magic" Many things we know today would have this affect on people without our current knowledge or technologies. I myself have met a few who treat us like puppets for their own amusement or gratification. Some or many it would seem have stealth like ability as well. Once you know their secrets it isn't as awesome to witness anymore. In some cases people just demonize themselves because they can. It would be nice if we were all accepted as equals instead of playthings. I can accept that their are ghosts and entities. Psychics and or mediums may just have a friend(s) on the other side who clue them in on certain things. I guess I could say some of these I have met are the watchers the bible has mentioned and mostly the book of Enoch. Others might refer to them as; Aliens etc. Look into Remote Viewing. It isn't much different from what the watchers can do but a far cry from what they have done with it manipulating us.

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedit...

http://www.trvnews.com/tsl/031502/index....

This site seems to embellish Lucifer:

http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/a...

Answer 13

If someone wanted to prove Ghost Demons and Vampires, I suppose the only way to do so would be to capture on in a cage. Any photos, EVPs or video would not be accepted as proof by skeptics, because it is too easy to fake.

Psychics would need to predict the cards at 100%. Or enough of them to get above any statistical outlyers.

This would be the only way a psychic could prove they are truely psychic and not just getting lucky.

I would accept going through a deck of unmarked playing cards with 80% or better.

There is not enough varience in those cards with the squares and wavy lines to prove anyone is psychic.

To be honest, the only way someone could prove psychic powers, would to actually be psychic, and that is what has never happened.

Psychics and Mediums do what they do through cold reading. Its pretty convincing to the majority of people and preys on those who are emotionally distraught.

The bottom line is, if someone was truely psychic, they would be 100% accurate. So far, we have only seen excuses, not results.