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 EVPs 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 persons 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 experimenters 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 youd be really surprised why no such photo exist. The same for photos of Nessie, Bigfoot, or UFOs. 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?. Suspicious Minds No one trust anyones 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 doesnt 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 UFOs. Wed 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 courts geographic jurisdiction. Paranormal Peer Review Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an authors 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, EVPs, 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.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:05:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015