A real haunting or ghost
encounter is in the eye and mind of the person
who has the not so pleasant experience of
being disturbed by the meeting. Many groups
consider grainy photos scratchy EVP's or misty
shapes and orbs as proof enough to support
their efforts.
But the evidence is not
made of such hard supported facts and conclusions.
The populous of the world will not believe
what they see or hear unless it is supported
and declared by a reliable source who says
it is so! To this day no one in the paranormal
community has become the great say it all,
see it all and most of all believable persona
that can make all paranormal claims 100% accepted
by the public as truth.
You Know it would take a
an act of congress, or world religious leaders
to declare and stand behind a persons claim.
So far no matter who you are in the Paranormal
Community your still just a small fish in
a small pond.
Evidence in its broadest
sense includes anything that is used to determine
or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.
Philosophically, evidence can include propositions
which are presumed to be true used in support
of other propositions that are presumed to
be falsified. The term has specialized meanings
when used with respect to specific fields,
such as policy, scientific method, criminal
procedures, and legal discourse.
The most immediate form of evidence available
to an individual is the observations of that
person's own senses. For example an observer
wishing for evidence that the sky is blue
need only look at the sky. However this same
example illustrates some of the difficulties
of evidence as well:
Someone who was blue-yellow color blind,
but did not know it, would have a very different
perception of what color the sky was than
someone who was not. Even simple sensory perceptions
(qualia) ultimately are subjective; guaranteeing
that the same information can be considered
somehow true in an objective sense is the
main challenge of establishing standards of
evidence. There is also the question of what
is meant by 'blue', and how we measure it.
(If determined by a particular wave-length
of colour - then how do we actually measure
this?) there is also the question of how evidence
'translates' e.g. is 'blau' in German universally
translated as 'blue' in English: Germans may
have different words for different parts of
the spectrum; thus 'evidence' is a social
construction.
And the larger question is who do we have
to prove our beliefs to?
In scientific research evidence is accumulated
through observations of phenomena that occur
in the natural world, or which are created
as experiments in a laboratory. Scientific
evidence usually goes towards supporting or
rejecting a hypothesis. When evidence is contradictory
to predicted expectations, the evidence and
the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized
(see experimenter's regress) and only at the
end of this process the hypothesis is rejected:
this can be referred to as 'refutation of
the hypothesis'. The rules for evidence used
by science are collected systematically in
an attempt to avoid the bias inherent to anecdotal
evidence: nonetheless even anecdotal evidence
is enough to reject a theory incompatible
with that evidence, if there are sufficient
repeated examples.
100% Real
Ghost Photos
Who is to say a photo of
a ghost is real or not? Well you'd be really
surprised why no such photo exist. The same
for photos of Nessie, Bigfoot, or UFO's. Everyone
does not believe these photos to be real whether
they are or not. No one stands behind the
person who took the photo and believes their
claim. the photos and the person always come
under fire that they hoaxed it,But what is
a photo that can be believed. I have seen
photos convict a person of bank robbery even
murder whether reliable or creditable witness
were present or not.
But why does a photo of
an alleged ghost or Bigfoot, strange UFO or
el Chupacabra fall to the wayside. We all
know the answer in one word. CREDIABILITY.
Do you believe that these
reported "Real Phost Photos" below
are fake or real? Decide for your self and
come to your own conlclusions.
Legal evidence differs from
the above in the tight rules governing the
presentation of facts that tend to prove or
disprove the point at issue. In law, certain
policies require that evidence that tends
to prove or disprove an assertion or fact
must nevertheless be excluded from consideration
based either on indicia relating to reliability,
or on broader social concerns. Testimony (which
tells) and exhibits (which show) are the two
main categories of evidence presented at a
trial or hearing. In federal court, evidence
is admitted or excluded under the Federal
Rules of Evidence.
Are these real ghost ...
Review this evidence and come to your own
conclusions!
Examples of
demonstrative evidence include photos, x-rays,
videotapes, movies, sound recordings, diagrams,
forensic animation, maps, drawings, graphs,
animation, simulations, and models. It is
useful for assisting a finder of fact (fact-finder)
in establishing context among the facts presented
in a case. To be admissible, a demonstrative
exhibit must “fairly and accurately”
represent the real object at the relevant
time. See Federal Rules of Evidence 901, 902,
and 1001-1004.
If photos of
ghost do not visually educate others to believe
your claims then what do you do?
Also
see: The Very Best Ghost
Photos Ever Taken ... Are in the eye of the
beholder.
Suspicious
Minds
No one trust anyone's word.
No one believes what others see or hear unless
you know the person so well you can stand
behind them and say yes my friend is telling
the truth. But the world in general does not
believe you or anyone else unless it is a
respected elected official verifying something
as genuine. An early belief of some philosophers
of Ancient Greece was that the mind was like
a recording device and simply kept somehow-objective
records of what the senses experienced. This
was believed in the Western world into the
20th century until cognitive psychology experiments
decisively proved that it was not true, and
that many events were simply filled in by
the mind, based on what "should be".
This among other things explained why eyewitness
accounts of events often were so widely varied.
In Ancient Rome it was believed that personal
experience was part of some divine or species-wide
collective experience. This gave rise to notions
of racial memory, national mission, and such
notions as racism and patriotism. It was likely
easier to create political movements and military
morale with such notions, than a strictly
personal idea of experience. Carl Jung and
Joseph Campbell were notable investigators
of these ideas of collective experience in
the 20th century.
During The Enlightenment, there was rigorous
investigation of these ideas. Immanuel Kant
noted that it was only possible to explain
"experience and its objects" as
a consequence of each other: either experience
makes those objects possible, or those objects
make experience possible. This is seen today
as dualism, and denying the possibility of
a third thing making both experience and whatever
reality its objects have, both possible. That
thing could be a more universal cognition,
as proposed in some versions of Christianity
or Gaia philosophy.
Ghost as we al know are perceived by us using
all of our gathered self perceptions. The
expression anecdotal evidence has two quite
distinct meanings.
(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or
hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt
about its veracity: the evidence itself is
considered untrustworthy or untrue.
(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and
verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion from
which it does not follow, usually by generalizing
from an insufficient amount of evidence. For
example "my grandfather smoked like a
chimney and died healthy in a car crash at
the age of 99" does not disprove the
proposition that "smoking markedly increases
the probability of cancer and heart disease
at a relatively early age". In this case,
the evidence may itself be true, but does
not warrant the conclusion.
In both cases the conclusion is unreliable;
it might happen not to be untrue, but it doesn't
follow from the "evidence".
Evidence can be anecdotal in both senses:
"Goat yogurt prolongs life: I heard that
a man in a mountain village who ate only yogurt
lived to 120."
The term is often used in contrast to scientific
evidence, such as evidence-based medicine,
which are types of formal accounts. Some anecdotal
evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence
because its nature prevents it from being
investigated using the scientific method.
Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical
fallacy and is sometimes informally referred
to as the "person who" fallacy ("I
know a person who..."; "I know of
a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty
generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not
necessarily representative of a "typical"
experience; statistical evidence can more
accurately determine how typical something
is.
When used in advertising or promotion of
a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports
are often called a testimonial, which are
banned in some jurisdictions. The term is
also sometimes used in a legal context to
describe certain kinds of testimony. Psychologists
have found that people are more likely to
remember notable examples than typical examples[
The work that Ghosts hunters
whether on television or in books all falls
under the category of being suspect. Yes considered
a possible fraud or hoax. The general consciences
is the person making the claims that a ghost
or Real UFO photo exist is out to be recognized
as the authority in the field of ghosts. To
this day no one has officially become the
voice or head of all that is paranormal. no
matter how real the evidence is their is always
a debunker.
Even in the paranormal community
no one believes their contemporaries claims
100%. If they did then there would be no need
for others to hunt the elusive cryptids, search
for ghosts or seek out UFO's. We'd all as
a collective accept the word and facts of
our paranormal leader as the truth. Who is
our leader and respected authority to all
that is unknown? Well, we have none.
If there was a election
for the best and most creditable Ghost hunter,
Paranormal Investigator who would it be? People
are already divided into camps. Well in essence
if the paranormal community needs a leader,
then we need him more now then any other time
in history.
Evidence
of Ghosts
In science, anecdotal evidence
has been defined as: "information that
is not based on facts or careful study"
"non-scientific observations or studies,
which do not provide proof but may assist
research efforts" "reports or observations
of usually unscientific observers" "casual
observations or indications rather than rigorous
or scientific analysis" "information
passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented
scientifically" Anecdotal evidence can
have varying degrees of formality. For instance,
in medicine, published anecdotal evidence
is called a case report, which is a more formalized
type of evidence subjected to peer review.
Although such evidence is not regarded as
scientific, it is sometimes regarded as an
invitation to more rigorous scientific study
of the phenomenon in question. For instance,
one study found that 35 of 47 anecdotal reports
of side effects were later sustained as "clearly
correct."
Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for
suggesting new hypotheses, but never as supporting
evidence. Sot to say that what we do in researching
ghosts and hauntings is not considered true
evidence because a scientific certification
is not present.
Witness testimony is a common form of evidence
in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness
evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal
processes for the taking and assessment of
evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony
could be described as anecdotal evidence,
such as individual stories of harassment as
part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness
testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability.
Examples of approaches to testing and assessment
include the use of questioning, evidence of
corroborating witnesses, documents, video
and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks
suitable means to test and assess testimony
of a particular witness, such as the absence
of forms of corroboration or substantiation
it may afford that testimony limited or no
"weight" when making a decision
on the facts.
Thus the general thinking of the world is
that we as individuals have no background
in scientific research to support our claims
or those that witness paranormal phenomena
or not creditable in their assumptions.
In certain situations, scientific evidence
presented in court must also meet the legal
requirements for evidence. For instance, in
the United States, expert testimony of witnesses
must meet the Daubert Standard. This ruling
holds that before evidence is presented to
witnesses by experts, the methodology must
be "generally accepted" among scientists.
In some situations, anecdotal evidence may
meet this threshold (such as certain case
reports which corroborate or refute other
evidence).
We who hunt for the paranormal
or all cowardly lions. Were afraid to get
out there and say what we know and have experienced.
Yet we have the balls to tell others what
they should believe and wonder why they call
us frauds.
The Daubert standard is a legal precedent
set in 1993 by the Supreme Court of the United
States regarding the admissibility of expert
witnesses' testimony during federal legal
proceedings. The citation is Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
A Daubert motion is a motion, raised before
or during trial, to exclude the presentation
of unqualified evidence to the jury. This
is a special case of motion in line, usually
used to exclude the testimony of an expert
witness who has no such expertise or used
questionable methods to obtain the information.
In Daubert, the Supreme Court held that federal
trial judges are the “gatekeepers”
of scientific evidence. Under the Daubert
standard, therefore, trial judges must evaluate
proffered expert witnesses to determine whether
their testimony is both “relevant”
and “reliable”, a two-pronged
test of admissibility.
The relevancy prong: The relevancy of a testimony
refers to whether or not the expert’s
evidence “fits” the facts of the
case. For example, you may invite an astronomer
to tell the jury if it had been a full moon
on the night of a crime. However, the astronomer
would not be allowed to testify if the fact
that the moon was full was not relevant to
the issue at hand in the trial.
The reliability prong: The Supreme Court explained
that in order for expert testimony to be considered
reliable, the expert must have derived his
or her conclusions from the scientific method
(Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(1993) 509 U.S. 579, 589.) The Court offered
"general observations" of whether
proffered evidence was based on the scientific
method, although the list was not intended
to be used as an exacting checklist:
Empirical testing: the theory or technique
must be falsifiable, refutable, and testable.
Subjected to peer review and publication.
Known or potential error rate and the existence
and maintenance of standards concerning its
operation.
Whether the theory and technique is generally
accepted by a relevant scientific community.
Although trial judges have always had the
authority to exclude inappropriate testimony,
previous to Daubert, trial courts often preferred
to let juries hear evidence proffered by both
sides. Once certain evidence has been excluded
by a Daubert motion because it fails to meet
the relevancy and reliability standard, it
will likely be challenged when introduced
again in another trial. Even though a Daubert
motion is not binding to other courts of law,
if something was found not trustworthy, other
judges may choose to follow that precedent.
Of course, a decision by the Court of Appeals
that a piece of evidence is inadmissible under
Daubert would be binding on district courts
within that court's geographic jurisdiction.
Paranormal Peer Review
Peer review (also known as refereeing) is
the process of subjecting an author's scholarly
work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of
others who are experts in the same field.
Peer review requires a community of experts
in a given (and often narrowly defined) field,
who are qualified and able to perform impartial
review. Impartial review, especially of work
in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary
fields may be difficult to accomplish, and
the significance (good or bad) of an idea
may never be widely appreciated among its
contemporaries. Although generally considered
essential to academic quality, peer review
has been criticized as ineffective, slow,
and misunderstood.
So in the field of the Paranormal there are
what in our case no exact experts to examine
the body of evidence collected. Pragmatically,
peer review refers to the work done during
the screening of submitted evidence, ghost
photos, EVP's, or Video or written accounts
and manuscripts. All this for varification
by a respected expert in the fiels to challenge
ones findings. Then validate or deny the proof
as truth.
If we had a said Paranormal Expert or voted
one into position like a president then, this
normative process would encourage authors,
Paranormal Investigators, or just those that
dabble in the unknown to meet the accepted
standards of their discipline and prevents
the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable
interpretations and personal views. Publications
of ghost evidence by the eyes of the public
that have not undergone peer review are likely
to be regarded with suspicion by scholars
professionals and the general public as frauds.
So how do we become legitimate in our claims
that ghosts or real? Simply we need to set
up a panel or a president that would deem
our findings as legitimate claims that ghosts
truly exist. We need to set up our own ethics
of what research is by our own means. The
same applies to Cryptid, and UFO research.
We need one governing body to rule the paranormal
world around us and qualify our evidence.
But who do we deem as such?
The Parnormal Oath or Code and beliefs we
all should abide by:
Act with skill and care in all Paranormal
investigative work.
Maintain up to date skills and assist their
development in others individually or in groups
of learning by a set standard.
Take steps to prevent corrupt practices and
professional misconduct.
Declare conflicts of interest.
Be alert to the current and new budding
ways in which research derives from and affects
the work of other people, and respect the
rights and reputations of others.
Ensure that your work is lawful and justified.
Minimise and justify any adverse effect your
work may have on people, animals and the natural
environment.
Seek to discuss the issues that our paranormal
science raises for society.
Listen to the evidence, aspirations and concerns
of others in the field of paranormal research.
Do not knowingly mislead, or allow others
to be misled, about paranormal matters.
Present and review paranormal evidence,
theory or interpretation honestly and accurately.
